JAGDISH AND ANR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1082 · Decided: 18-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i 
A 
JAGDISH AND ANK 
-f-
v. 
STATE OF MADRY A PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, J860; S. 302 rlw S. 34: 
-!~ 
c 
Murder-Four accu~ed persons armed with weapons allegedly attacked 
deceased causing his death-Trial Court acquitted all of them giving benefit 
of doubt-Reversed by High Court-On appeal, Held: High Court, while 
dealing with a judgment of acquittal, although could. re-appreciate the 
material· brought on record, but it could not ordinarily interfere with the 
judgment of acquittal when two views arepossible-High Court's jurisdiction 
D to interfere with the order of acquittal permissible only when the material 
on record would lead to only one conclusion that appellant is guilty and it 
requires to meet the reasoning of the trial Court-Jn the present case, High 
Court proceeded on the premise that the approach of the trial Couri was 
negative as it discussed only the inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution 
E 
witnesses-The view taken by the High Court is not acceptable since no 
reasons assigned for taking such a view-Jn the facts and circumstances of 
the case, High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of 
acquittal-Jurisdiction of High Court-Re-appreciation of evidence. 
Complainant, PWI, lodged an FIR alleging that on the fateful day, when 
F 
he along with his nephews went to the house of one 'G' for borrowing his 
bullock cart to carry bricks, he asked them to take it from 'Reda' of one 'B' 
~-
and asked his son to accompany them up to the said place. When they reached 
the place, the accused persons armed with weapons came out of their houses 
and threatened them of dire consequences. On seeing the complainant, his 
nephew and another, one of the accused allegedly hit one of his nephews, the 
G deceased, on his neck as a result whereof he fell down resulting in a big 
wound. Other accused persons also inflicted injuries on his back and neck. 
The accused, after inflicting injuries on the deceased, ran away. The victim 
succumbed to the injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the 
...\'-1'_
Police. Trial Court, on the basis of the medical evidence vis-a-vis the ocular 
H 
1082 
T 
JAG DISH v. STA TE 
1083 
evidence, opined that participation of three of the accused was doubtful and A 
found contradiction in the statements of PW-2; that in view of the contradictory 
statements made by the prosecution witnesses in the court, vis-a-vis the 
prosecution story as divulged in the First Information Report, it was doubtful 
as to whether the appellants had caused any injury on the deceased; and that 
the sequence of the event in which the assaults were said to have been caused B 
was also doubtful being contradictory and inconsistent. Trial Court acquitted 
all the accused persons. Appeal filed by the State was allowed by the High 
Court convicting the accused for alleged commission of offence punishable 
u/s.302 r/w S.34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for life. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court while dealing with an appeal from a judgment 
of acquittal was required to meet the reasonings of the Trial Judge. There 
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that irrespective of the fact that the High Court 
c 
was dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it was open to it to re-appreciate the D 
materials brought on records by the parties, but it i~ a well-settled principle 
of law that where two views are possible, the High Court would not ordinarily 
interfere with the judgment of acquittal. [Para 12) (1087-F, G) 
Rattan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2007) 5 SCALE 472, relied 
on. 
E 
1.2. The High Court's jurisdiction to interfere in such a matter is 
permissible in law provided the materials on records lead to only one 
conclusion that the appellants arc guilty. The High Court in its impugned 
judgment had almost reproduced the First Information Report as also the F 
depositions of the prosecution witnesses. It did not make any endeavour to 
analY7J! the evidence independently. It proceeded on the basis that the approach 
of the Trial Court was negative. According to the High Court, as the Trial 
Court had discussed in detail only the inconsistencies in the evidence of the 
prosecution witnesses, the same should not be accepted. Why a different view 
should be taken has not been spelt out. The High Court appears to have G 
proceeded on the premise that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.