LexJAFARUDHEEN & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 721 [2022] 5 S.C.R. 721 721 JAFARUDHEEN & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 430-431 of 2015) APRIL 22, 2022 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.378: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of – Appellate Court has to consider whether trial court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed – An order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – Double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters – Thus, appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of trial court rendering acquittal. Criminal Law: FIR: Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate – FIR starts the process of investigation by setting criminal law into motion – Investigation officer has to keep the magistrate in the loop of his ongoing investigation – Such an information is expected to reach the jurisdictional magistrate at the earliest point of time – Delay introduces coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation – However, a mere delay by itself cannot be a sole factor in rejecting the prosecution’s case. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.161–Investigating Officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offense – An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution’s case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case – However, non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. Evidence Act: s.27: Fact discovered – Onus – Admissibility under s.27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact A B C D E F G H 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R. discovered – It facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offense – The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the information obtained from the accused – One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means – The Court will have to be conscious of the witness’s credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery under s.27 of the Evidence Act. Criminal Law – In the instant case, accused, 16 in numbers, assembled, hatched a conspiracy and thereafter attacked deceased to take out his life – Trial Court convicted A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 under IPC and acquitted A-10 to A-16 by considering the evidences on record – High Court confirmed the order of acquittal against A-14 to A-16 and confirmed the conviction against the other accused, namely, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9, but it overturned the order of acquittal of A-10, A-11, A-12, and A-13 granted by trial court on the premise that the witnesses who spoke about these accused’s presence failed to consider the import of s.149 IPC – On appeal, held: Trial court has taken a possible view that the evidence rendered by the eyewitnesses does not satisfy the Court qua the presence of A-10 to A-13 – As trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses as they deposed, the appellate forum cannot change the conclusion arrived at thereafter by substituting its views – High Court has adopted the principle of preponderance of probability as could be applicable to the civil cases to the case on hand when more scrutiny is warranted for reversing an order of acquittal – For the recovery made from A-12 also, there was no confirmation from prosecution witnesses – The blood-stained dress was stated to have been recovered from A-13 from the hospital – It is not known as to how the said dress reached the hospital, and there was no evidence forthcoming on that count, apart from correlating the said dress to that of the accused – There seemed to be a structured pattern in the recovery of A-10 to A-13 – Conviction rendered by High Court against A-10 to A-13 stands set aside – Acquittal by trial court restored. A B C D E F G H 723 Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.