HAKEEM KHAN & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 22-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 735 
HAKEEM KHAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of2007) 
A 
MARCH 22, 2017 
B 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.49 - Prosecution case was 
that there was dispute between the complainant party and accused 
party due to panchayat elections - On fatefal day, accused persons 
armed with lathis and farsis intercepted complainant party and 
attacked them resulting in death of one person - Trial court acquitted 
the accused persons on the ground that there were injuries on both 
the sides; that there were six eye-witnesses including injured eye-
witness but only one of them was an independent witness who 
however turned hostile; and that two other independent eye 
witnesses were available but were not examined - High Court, 
however, reversed the order of acquittal - On appeal, held: Presence 
of the kingpin 'sarpanch at the spot was itself doubtful in view of 
the fact that he attended the Court at some distance and arrived by 
bus after the inciden't took place - The findings of High Court that 
the unquestioned injuries could only lead to the conclusion that 
there was a scujjle without pre-meditation and the minor injuries 
on members of the accused party proved their presence at the 
incident, not sustainable - Also, High Court erred in discarding 
trial court's reasoning thatthe only independent eye-witness turned 
hostile and two other independent witnesses were not examined, 
leading to the conclusion that the prosecution story became doubtful 
- Interference with the order of High Court called for - Conviction 
set aside. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l. The trial court's judgment is more than just a 
possible view for arriving at the conclusion of acquittal, and that 
it would not he safe to convict seventeen persons accused of the 
crime of murder i.e. under Section 302 read with Section 149 of 
the Indian Penal Code. The most important reason of the trial 
735 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
736 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. 
court, was that, given the time of 06:30 p.m. to 07:00 p.m. of a 
winter evening,_it would he dark, and, therefore, identification of 
seventeen persons would be extremely diffi.cult. This reason, 
coupled with the fact that the only independent witness turned 
hostile, and two other eye-witnesses who were independent were 
not examined, would certainly create a large hole in the 
prosecution story. Apart from this, the very fact that there were 
injuries on three of the accused party, two of them being deep 
injuries in the skull, would lead to the conclusion that nothing 
was pre-meditated and there was, in all probability, a scuffle that 
led to injuries on both sides. The respondent may be rigitt in 
stating that the trial court went overboard in stating that the 
complainant party was the aggressor, but the trial court's ultimate 
conclusion leading to an acquittal is certainly a possible view on 
the facts of this case. This is coupled with the fact that the presence 
of the kingpin Sarpanch is itself doubtful in view of the fact that 
he attended the Court at some distance and arrived by bus after 
the incident took place. [Para 10) [740-D-G) 
2. The High Court has interfered with the trial ·court's 
Judgment on several counts. First it states that according to the 
complainant, there was "some dark", It was not stated that i~ was 
complelely dark, and this being so, even in poor light all seventeen 
persons could have been identified as they were known to the 
other side. The High Court seems to have reversed acquittal by 
substituting its view for that of the trial court. The High Court 
goes on to state that the presence of minor injuries cin the persons 
of the members of the accused parties proves their presence at 
the incident. This is hardly the way to deal with a finding of the 
trial court that these unquestioned injuries could only lead to the 
conclusion that there was a scuffle without pre-meditation. Also, 
the High Court stated that merely because independent witnesses 
did not cooperate with the prosecution case, evidence of other 
eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. This does not deal with the 
trial court's reasoning that the only independent eye-witness 
turned hostile and two other independent witnesses were not 
examined, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution story, 
would, therefore, become doubtful. Above all, when it came to 
the presence of th

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