ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 04-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 1035
1035
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 946-947 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 04, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w s.149, s.307 r/w s.149 and
s.148 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25 and 30 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.293 – Murder of five persons – Seven accused
– The deceased belonged to or were associated with the same family;
two of them were brothers, the third was their minor son and the
other two were their close family friends – Trial Court acquitted all
the accused – Appeal against acquittal – High Court reversed the
findings of the trial court and convicted all the accused under ss.148,
302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 of the IPC, and sentenced
them to life imprisonment – Propriety of – Held: High Court was
justified in exercising its appellate jurisdiction in reversing the order
of acquittal as there were certain glaring mistakes, and distorted
conclusions in the decision of the Trial Court – High Court was
duty-bound to reverse the decision as there existed very substantial
and compelling reasons to do so, failing which it would have caused
a grave miscarriage of justice – Prosecution proved the presence
of PW-1 at the place of occurrence and of him being an injured
eye-witness to the incident – Facts narrated in the FIR were fully
corroborated by much of the documentary evidence and were fully
in consonance with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses –
The High Court was correct in rejecting the submission that the
prosecution failed to prove a common object and unlawful assembly
– The arrests of A6, A10, A7 and A8 were concurrently and
consistently spoken by all the witnesses, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12
– Conclusion drawn by trial court that the arrest and recovery were
doubtful were glaring mistakes – Rejection of the FSL (ballistic)
report was another grave mistake of the Trial Court – Conclusion
of Trial Court that the ballistic report was inadmissible as it is not in
consonance with the requirement of s.293 Cr.P.C. was entirely wrong
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
– The ballistic report was in complete compliance of the statutory
provision – High Court had to necessarily step in to prevent a grave
miscarriage of justice.
Appeal – Appeal against acquittal by trial court – Jurisdiction
of the High Court – Discussed.
Criminal Law – Motive – Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive
does not have a direct bearing on the actual evidence against the
accused, particularly when the prosecution relies on direct evidence
of injured eyewitnesses.
Criminal Law – Investigation – Defective investigation by
investigating authorities by itself does vitiate the case of the
prosecution when there are credible eye-witness testimonies as well
as other compelling pieces of evidence.
Evidence – Witness – Testimony of injured eye-witness –
Appreciation – Held: When there are credible ocular witnesses whose
statements are corroborated by other contemporaneous evidence,
certain minor variations, such as non-recovery of blood-stained
clothes, certain other weapons etc. will not be fatal to the case of
the prosecution.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.293 – Statutory
requirement under – Compliance – FSL (ballistic) report – On facts,
the report came from the office of the Assistant Director of a Forensic
Lab bearing his seal – Conclusion of the Trial Court that the ballistic
report was inadmissible as it was not in consonance with the
requirement of Section 293 Cr.P.C., is entirely wrong – Ballistic report
was in complete compliance of the statutory provision – Trial Court
erred in rejecting the ballistic report.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the High Court was justified
in exercising its appellate jurisdiction in reversing the order of
acquittal as there were certain glaring mistakes, and distorted
conclusions in the decision of the Trial Court. The High Court
was duty-bound to reverse the decision as there existed very
substantial and compelling reasons to do so, failing which it would
have caused a grave miscarriage of justice. [Para 174][1109-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
2. Even though the prosecution placed material to establish
the existence of a motive on the part of the accused party to
murder five members of the Shukla family and associates, the
motive part is treated secondary in view of the fact that this is a
cas

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