ABDUL MANNAN versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 18-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 2 S.C.R. 1030 
ABDUL MANNAN 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]' 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3021323134 - Appellant charged 
for committing murder - Acquittal by trial court - Reversed 
C by High Court - On appeal, held: Trial Court was not justified 
in acquitting appellant when there was overwhelming evidence 
against him - Medical evidence corroborated evidence of 
eye-witnesses - Eye-witnesses categorically named appellant 
and attributed specific role to him - There was mis-reading 
D of evidence and non-appreciation of law in proper perspective 
i by trial court. 
Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, when 
brother of informant was on way, accused persons 
E attacked and assaulted him. On hearing his screams, the 
informant, deceased and another brother rushed to the 
spot and intervened whereupon they were also 
assaulted. The injured persons were taken to the hospital. 
Deceased succumbed to injuries after 14 days. Accused 
persons were charged of committing offence under 
F ss.3021323134 IPC. 
Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. On 
appeal, High Court observed that the view taken by the 
trial Court was not a possible or plausible view and the 
G judgment of trial Court was perverse and wholly 
untenable. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1030 
ABDUL MANNAN v. STATE OF ASSAM 
1031 
HELD: 1.1. The medical evidence corroborated the 
A 
evidence of five eye witnesses including the statement$ 
of the injured eye witnesses. The Trial Court gravely erred 
in ignoring the most important and material aspect of the 
prosecution version. In the impugned judgment, the High 
Court carefully marshalled the entire prosecution 
B 
evidence. [Paras 13 and 14] [1036-F-H] 
1.2. It is well settled that in a case where the Trial 
Court has recorded acquittal, the Appellate Court should 
be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal. On 
evaluation of the evidence, if the two views are possible, 
C 
the Appellate Court should not substitute its own view 
and discard the judgment of the Trial Court. But, in the 
instant case, the High Court clearly came to the 
conclusion that the entire approach of the Trial Court 
cannot be sustained both on the law and the facts. 
D 
According to the High Court, there was non-reading and 
mis-reading of the evidence and the law, as it stands, was 
also not appreciated in proper perspective. According to 
the High Court, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court 
can only be termed as perverse because no Court acting 
E 
reasonably and judiciously can ever take such a view. 
The High Court was fully justified in setting aside the 
acquittal so far as the appellant and the other accused 
persons were concerned. The High Court also examined 
that this was a clear case of common intention in 
F 
committing the crime. The Court obse~ed that common 
intention can develop during the course of an 
occurrence. [Paras 15 and 16] [1037-B-F] 
Sheoram Singh v. State of. U.P. AIR 1972 SC 2555; 
G 
Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1994 SC 461, 
referred to. 
1.3. The appellant was named in the F.l.R. All the eye 
witnesses inclu.ding the injured eye witnesses 
H 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A categorically named appellant and attributed specific role 
to him. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court was not 
justified in acquitting the accused when there was 
overwhelming evidence against the appellant and other 
accused. It was not a case that the view taken by the Trial 
B Court was a plausible or a possible view. The judgment 
of the Trial Court was wholly unsustainable. The close 
scrutiny and examination of the impugned judgment 
show that the High Court took into consideration all 
relevant factors in dealing with the appeal from the order 
c of acquittal. The impugned order of the High Court is 
unexceptionable. [Paras 19 and 20] [1038-E-H] 
1.4. The High Court in the impugned judgment 
convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II l.P .C. 
and awarded imprisonment for a period of four years and 
D to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand each; in default, · ' 
.. 
to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one 
nionth each. The sentence awarded by the High Court is 
just appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
case. [Para 21] (1039-A-B] 
' 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1972 SC 2555 
AIR 1994 SC 461 
referred to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.