2003 (9) TMI 805 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Acquittal of accused persons by the High Court - Murder - Offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') - HELD THAT - In view of the unsatisfactory nature of disposal of the appeal and the inherent improbabilities and incongruities in the conclusions, the unreasoned impugned judgment of the High Court warrants reversal. So far as Accused-Modan Lal is concerned, his conviction u/s 302 IPC as done by the Trial Court is restored. So far as acquittal of other accused persons u/s 302 read with Section 34 is concerned, the Trial Court had elaborately dealt with the evidence to extend benefit of doubt to them. The High Court did not interfere in the State's appeal so far as their acquittal is concerned. Nothing could be shown to us as to why the conclusions are to be reversed and in what way they are fallacious. Coming to the appeal filed by the State and the challenge of Ramakant Rai to the acquittal of accused respondents Sachidanand, Rasbehari and Janardan u/s 440 IPC, for which two years imprisonment was imposed, is concerned the High Court's judgment is reversed. The respondents Sachidanand, Rasbehari and Janardan were rightly convicted by the Trial Court u/s 440 IPC along with accused Madan Rai. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 500/- as imposed can be in no way termed to be excessive to warrant a different sentence. In the ultimate result, the judgment of the Trial Court is restored and that of the High Court is set aside. The respondents shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence, if any, to be served. The appeals are allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of a private party to file an appeal u/s Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of eyewitnesses.
3. Discrepancies in the FIR and medical evidence.
4. Acquittal of accused persons by the High Court and its validity.

Summary:

1. Competence of a private party to file an appeal u/s Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court affirmed that a private party can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The Court emphasized that Article 136 confers a wide discretionary power on the Court to interfere in suitable cases, irrespective of whether the appeal is filed by the State or a private party. This was supported by precedents such as Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr. and P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr.

2. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of eyewitnesses:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not correctly appreciate the facts and evidence. The High Court erroneously concluded that there was only one gunshot, while evidence indicated two gunshots. The Court noted that the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 was lightly brushed aside by the High Court without proper analysis. The Court emphasized that credible and trustworthy eyewitness accounts should not be dismissed based on medical opinions suggesting alternative possibilities.

3. Discrepancies in the FIR and medical evidence:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court attached undue importance to the correction in the FIR regarding the time of occurrence. The correction was made before the FIR was handed over to the police, and there was no material to support the High Court's conclusion that it was done subsequently. Additionally, the Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the explanation provided by Dr. Sudhakar Dube (PW-3) regarding the blackening observed during the examination of the deceased.

4. Acquittal of accused persons by the High Court and its validity:
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment acquitting Accused-Modan Rai and restored the Trial Court's conviction u/s 302 IPC. The Court found the High Court's conclusions to be based on inherent improbabilities and incongruities. The acquittal of other accused persons u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not interfered with, as the Trial Court had extended the benefit of doubt to them, and the High Court did not find fault with this conclusion. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court's conviction of Sachidanand, Rasbehari, and Janardan u/s 440 IPC, imposing a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's judgment. The respondents were directed to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of their sentences.

← Previous Next →