JAGDISH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 166 
JAGDISH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 411 of2008) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304 Part 11 and 323 - Prosecution 
case that free fight between relatives joined by other people to stop 
the fight - As a result death of Zand simple injuries to three persons 
- Conviction of appellant along with others for the offences 
punishable uls. 304 Part 11 ands. 323 and sentenced accordingly -
Upheld by the High Court - On appeal, by the appellant, held: 
Overwhelming evidence of three eye-witnesses proved beyond 
reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the incident 
and gave lathi blows causing injuries to the deceased - Findings 
by the courts below that incident did take place as alleged by the 
prosecution and appellant was present on the spot along with other 
accused - Non-finding of the blood stains on the spot has no effect 
on the prosecution case - Thus, the courts below justified in holding 
that the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable 
doubt against the appellant. 
Evidence - Appreciation of, by the Supreme Court - When 
conviction based on concurrent findings of two courts - Held: 
Supreme Court cannot appreciate the entire evidence de nova in a 
routine manner while hearing the criminal appeal - It is only when 
the impugned finding though concurrent in nature is wholly arbitrary, 
unreasonable or/and perverse to the extent that no judicial mind of 
average capacity can ever record such conclusion - On facts, no 
arbitrariness or/and unreasonableness noticed in the concurrent 
finding of the two courts below to persuade Supreme Court to re-
appreciate the entire evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is a settled principle of law that this Court 
cannot appreciate the entire evidence de novo in a routine manner 
while hearing the criminal appeal and that too when the conviction 
H 
is based on concurrent findings of two courts. It is only when this 
166 
JAGDISH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned finding though 
concurrent in nature is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable or/and 
perverse to the extent that no judicial mind of average capacity 
can ever record such conclusion, the Court may in appropriate 
case undertake the exercise of appreciating the evidence to the 
extent necessary to find out the error. In the instant case, no 
arbitrariness or/and unreasonableness is noticed in the concurrent 
finding of the two courts below inasmuch as the appellant was not 
able to point out any kind of illegality in the finding, which would 
persuade this Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence. [Paras 
19, 20] [171-C-E] 
1.2 The courts below were justified in appreciating the 
evidence of PWs 2, 10 and 12 who were held to be the eye-
witnesses to the incident and rightly came to a conclusion that 
the appellant was armed with lathi and gave blows to the deceased 
and was, therefore, responsible for causing death of Z. The 
evidence is consistent on all the material issues. There is nothing 
on record to suggest that these witnesses had any kind of enmity 
against the appellant or that they were closely related to the 
deceased or complainant or/and his family. In the absence of 
anything against these witnesses, their testimony was rightly 
accepted by the two courts below. [Paras 21, 23] [171-E-F, H; 
172-A] 
1.3 A concurrent finding of two courts, which is based on 
appreciation of oral evidence on a question as to whether the 
appellant (accused) was present on the spot, whether he gave 
blow to deceased and, if so, how many etc. is binding on this 
Court. It is more so when no illegality was pointed out in the 
finding warranting any interference. Further, there is no hesitation 
in upholding the findings of the two courts below and it is held 
that the incident in question did take place as alleged by the 
prosecution and that the appellant was present on the spot along 
with other accused. [Paras 22, 24] [171-F-G; 172-B] 
1.4 Merely because the blood stains were not found on the 
spot by itself is no ground to hold that the appellant was not 
involved in the incident and that no such incident had taken place. 
In any event, in the light of overwhelming evidence of as many as 
three eye-witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that 
the appellant was involved in the incident and being armed with 
167 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 

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