ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 22-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
237
ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s 302 rw s. 149 – Dispute between the
parties over the pathway, an order of stay obtained by the prime
accused and consequential panchayat also held on the date of
occurrence – Prime accused along with his son and 25 others got
into the land of the victim and other witnesses, and attacked them
with weapons – Death of two and injuries to others – Complaint
filed by eye-witness – Acquittal of two while conviction of five of
them – Acquittal of one more accused by the High Court while
upholding the conviction of the other four, and ordered for further
investigation u/s 173(8) CrPC – Pursuant thereto, ten more accused
added – Conviction and sentence of four accused while one referred
to the Juvenile Justice Board, and acquittal of remaining five –
Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Evidence adduced is
not separable – Common findings rendered to be made applicable
to all the accused – There are too many loopholes which cannot be
filled up, nor there is any evidence to come to a different conclusion
with respect to the offence committed including that of exceeding
the right of private defence – When the plea of private defence is
taken, the quality of material evidence have to be a bit higher than
that of the one required in a normal circumstance – Civil dispute
between two groups of villagers turned into a criminal case –
Investigation not conducted in a fair manner – Denial of injuries to
the accused by the witnesses, though mentioned in the FIR – Place
of occurrence also doubtful – Case of over implication by witnesses
– Eyewitness’s evidence also does not inspire confidence – View
that the evidence of an injured witness has to be placed at a higher
pedestal may not apply to a case of private defence with the accused
also injured – Furthermore, doctor’s evidence does not support the
specific overt act – Genesis and origin of the occurrence and the
manner in which it took place are certainly suppressed – Thus, there
is unwarranted approach of the prosecution – Order of acquittal
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 237
237
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
upheld – Reasoning adopted for the accused persons acquitted to
be applied to the case of the others as well – Thus, accused entitled
to the benefit of doubt as imprimatur given to the plea of private
defence as possible and plausible with due discharge of onus.
ss. 96 to 102 – Private defence – Plea of – Discussed.
s. 149 – Scope of – Stated.
Motive – Effect of, on prosecution case – Stated.
Investigation: Fair Investigation, defective investigation and
colourable investigation – Explained.
Doctrine/Principle: Falsus in uno-falsus in omnibus –
Principle of.
Allowing the appeals by the accused and dismissing the
appeals by the complainant, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An Investigating Officer being a public servant
is expected to conduct the investigation fairly. While doing so,
he is expected to look for materials available for coming to a
correct conclusion. He is concerned with the offense as against
an offender. It is the offense that he investigates. It is believed
that a pliable change is required in the mind of the Investigating
Officer. After all, he is an officer of the court also and his duty is
to find out the truth and help the court in coming to the correct
conclusion. He does not know sides, either of the victim or the
accused but shall only be guided by law and be an epitome of
fairness in his investigation. [Para 40][258-G; 259-A-B]
1.2 There is a subtle difference between a defective
investigation, and one brought forth by a calculated and deliberate
action or inaction. A defective investigation per se would not enure
to the benefit of the accused, unless it goes into the root of the
very case of the prosecution being fundamental in nature. While
dealing with a defective investigation, a court of law is expected
to sift the evidence available and find out the truth on the principle
that every case involves a journey towards truth. There shall not
be any pedantic approach either by the prosecution or by the
court as a case involves an element of law rather than morality.
[Para 41][259-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
1.3 An offense would involve an element of mental rebellion
when the mind of a person creates an action not supported by the
ethos and values of a social st

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