ASHISH JAIN versus MAKRAND SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 14-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
ASHISH JAIN
v.
MAKRAND SINGH AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1980 of 2008)
 JANUARY 14, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302/34, 394/34 and 449 – ss. 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh
Dakaiti and Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 and
ss. 25(1)(b)(a) r/w s. 27 of Arms Act, 1959 – Prosecution under –
Of three accused – Prosecution case based on circumstantial
evidence – Two last seen witnesses – Recovery of incriminating
articles on the basis of confessional statements of the accused –
Conviction by trial court imposing death setence – High Court
acquitted the accused  – On appeal, held: Unless any blatant
illegality or substantial error in the order of acquittal is proved,
and as long as the conclusion of acquittal is a possible view, Supreme
Court is not bound to interfere with the same – Acquittal granted by
High Court is well-reasoned – Appellants have failed to prove any
substantial error in the order of High Court – The accused are
entitled to be acquitted as a reasonable suspicion or doubt persists
regarding the guilt of the accused – Acquittal order confirmed..
Criminal Law:
Presumption of innocence  – Held: Where appellate court
acquits the accused, there is a double presumption in favour of
accused – Initial presumption of innocence is reinforced by the
acquittal.
Appeal:
Appeal against  acquittal order – Interference with  –  Held:
In such cases, if the view of the High Court is reasonable and based
on the material on record, Supreme Court should not interfere  –
Interference in such cases is permissible only when the order of
High Court is palpably erroneous, constituting miscarriage of justice
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 345
345
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
and also when there is misconception of law or erroneous
interpretation of evidence or when the High Court has completely
misdirected itself in reversing the order of trial court.
Evidence:
Confession – Evidentiary value – Held: There is an embargo
on accepting self-incriminatory evidence – But, if it leads to recovery
of material objects in relation to the crime, it is most often taken to
hold evidentiary value as per circumstances of each case  –  If such
statement is made under undue pressure and compulsion, the
evidentiary value of such evidence leading to the recovery is nullified
as it is hit by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution  –  Constitution of India
– Art. 20(3) –  Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 27.
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920:
ss.4 and 5  –  Fingerprint samples - Obtained without
magisterial order – Whether illegal  –  Held: If suspicious
circumstances arise, in order to ward off such suspicion, it is in the
interest of justice to get orders from the Magistrate  – But that does
not mean that u/s. 4, police officers are not entitled to take
fingerprints until order is taken from Magistrate.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In a case wherein the High Court has acquitted
the accused of all the charges, there is a double presumption in
favour of the accused, as the initial presumption of innocence is
further reinforced by an acquittal by the High Court.  In such a
case, this Court will keep in mind that the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by the order
of acquittal and thus if the view of the High Court is reasonable
and based on the material on record, this Court should not
interfere with the same. Interference is to be made only when
there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so, and if the
ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court is palpably
erroneous, constituting a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Moreover, interference can be made if there is a misconception
of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence or the High Court
has completely misdirected itself in reversing the order of
conviction by the Trial Court. [Para 17][358-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
347
State of Rajasthan v. Islam and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 343
: [2011] 6 SCR 988; State of U.P. v. Awdhesh (2008)
16 SCC 238 : [2008] 13 SCR 269; State (Delhi Admin.)
v. Laxman Kumar and Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 476 : [1985]
2 Suppl. SCR 898 – relied on.
2.1 PW12 and PW20 are the last seen witnesses who saw
the entry and the exit of the accused persons from the crime
scene, respectively. These two witnesses have categorically
stated that they had conveyed this piece of valuable information
to the complainant PW26 right before he filed the first information.
However, there is

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