LexAMIN KHAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 348 ' " A AMIN KHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2009) 8 FEBRUARY 25, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 390 - Accused c persons assaulted one person, shot dead another and fled 'lway with booty of Rs.1.61 lakhs- Trial under s.396 IPC and ss.3 and 35 of the Arms Act- Acquittal by trial Court - High Court, on an application by State, commiting the accused- appellants to prison after summoning them through non- ,. D bailable warrants - Justification of - Held: Justified, as prima facie the evidence regarding identification made in Court and DNA test was not considered in the proper perspective by the trial Court - Under s.390, High Court has power to re-arrest the accused pending disposal of appeal against his acquittal E - Penal Code, 1860 - s.396 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 3, 35. According to the prosecution, the six accused persons assaulted a person and fled away with a booty of Rs.1.61 lakhs and in the process murdered the owner F of a petrol pump by firing a shot at him from a 0.12 bore gun. The accused faced trial under s.396 IPC and ss.3 and - 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, but were acquitted by the trial Court. The State filed application to commit the accused persons to prison after summoning them through non- bailable warrants. The application was allowed by the G High Court in respect of the two accused-appellants. • .,_ Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 348 AMIN KHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 349 ' HELD: 1. Section 390 Cr.P.C. corresponds to Section A 427 of the repealed Code. In the present section the word and figure "Section 378" are substituted for the words and figures "Section 411-A sub section (2) of Section 417" in the old Section. Except for this change, no other changes are made. Under this section the High Court has B the power to re-arrest the accused pending the disposal of an appeal against his acquittal. [Para 12) [354-C-D] -, 2. In the present case, the High Court found that prima facie the evidence regarding identification made in c court and DNA test was not considered in the proper perspective by the trial Court. It was noted that the DNA report of the hair allegedly seized from the hands of the deceased prima facie established that it was of the .. accused-appellants who remained throughout the trial in - D custody. That being so, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court to warrant interference. [Para 13) [354-E-F] Case Law Reference: AIR 1957 SC 366 Relied on. Para 4 E AIR 1956 SC 460 Relied on. Para 4 ~ ~ 1972 (3) sec 751 Relied on. Para 4 AIR 1965 SC 277 Relied on. Para 4 F AIR 1954 SC 15 Relied on. Para 4 1975 (4) sec 511 Relied on. Para 4 1981 (2) sec 1s2 Relied on. Para 4 G ~ '> 2002 (6) sec 81 Relied on. Para 4 2003 (7) sec 643 Relied on. Para 4 2004 (4) sec 158 Relied on. Para 4 H 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. f . A 2004(10) sec 443 Relied on. Para 4 2003 (12) sec 449 Relied on. Para 4 2004 (10) sec 120 Relied on. Para 4 B 2006 (10) sec 601 Relied on. Para 4 AIR 1974 SC 2165 Relied on. Para 6 AIR 1976 SC 557 Relied on. Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal c Appeal No. 385 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.09.06 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Revision No. 561/2006. ,. ._ D Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Appellants. S.R. Bajwa, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, P.C. Jain, Puneet Jain, Pratibha Jain and Sushil Kr. Jain for the Respondent. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. ,_ 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Six persons F faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act'). The learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, acquitted the accused persons of all the charges. Being aggrieved by G the finding of learned Sessions Judge the State filed an • ._ application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). On 26.5.2006 the High Court granted leave and summoned the respondents through bailable warrants. O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.