JOGINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 24-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 446 
JOGINDER SINGH 
v 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2007) 
OCTOBER 24, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 307 r/w. s. 34 - Arms 
Act, 1959 - ss. 25 and 27 - Prosecution under - Of three 
C · accused including appellant-accused - Acquittal of all the 
accused by trial court giving them benefit of doubt - High 
Court convicted the appellant-accused while maintaining the 
acquittal order in respect of other accused - Held: The High 
Court has unsettled the reasonable findings of trial court in a 
o cryptic manner - Trial court has rightly acquitted the accused 
in view of the material contradiction in oral evidence and 
ballistic report, non-examination of material witnesses 
including injured witnesses - Conviction set aside. 
E 
Appeal- Appeal against acquittal - Scope of jurisdiction 
of appellate court - Discussed. 
Appellant-accused alongwith other two accused 
were prosecuted for the offences1 u/ss. 302 and 307 r/w. 
s. 34 IPC and u/ss. 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. As per 
F the prosecution case accused persons attacked the 
victim party with firearms resulting in death of one and 
injuries to three persons. PWs 1, 2 and 3 were the eye-
witnesses to the incident. The accused in their 
statements denied the incriminating evidence and stated 
G that it were the people belonging to Harijan community 
who came to their house armed with firearms and fired 
at them indiscriminately and that they did not use any 
firearm. The trial court giving benefit of doubt acquitted 
all the accused of all the charges. The high Court relying 
H 
446 
JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
447 
on the evidence of eye-witnesses convicted the 
A 
appellant-accused, while acquitted the other accused 
persons giving them benefit of doubt. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court can exercise the power 
or jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal in cases 
where it finds that the lower court has "obstinately 
blundered" or has "through incompetence, stupidity or 
pen.fersity" reached such "distorted conclusions as to 
C 
produce a positive miscarriage of justice" or has in some 
other way so conducted or misconducted himself as to 
produce a glaring miscarriage of justice or has been 
tricked by the defence so as to produce a similar result. · 
[Para 13) (461-D-E] 
D 
1.2. In the present case, the High Court has 
compartmentalized the reasons ascribed by the trial 
Judge and thereafter dislodged the same one by one. The 
approach of the High Court in this regard cannot be 
flawed, but a pregnant one, it is required to be examined 
whether the High Court while dislodging the reasons and 
substituting the findings has appositely reappreciated the 
oral and documentary evidence brought on record to 
come to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial 
Judge is neither a plausible nor a reasonable one. [Para 
16) [463-F-H] 
E 
F 
Sheo Swarup and Ors. vs. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 
227; Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216; 
Khedu Mohton and Ors. vs. State of Bihar Ganesh Bhavan 
G 
Patel and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) 4 SCC 371: 
1979 (2) SCR 94; Awadhesh and Anr. vs. State of Madhya 
Pradesh (1988) 2 SCC 557: 1988 (3) SCR 513; Ram Kumar 
vs. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (1) SCC 248: 1994 (4) 
Suppl. SCR 335; Bhagwan Singh and Ors. vs. State of M.P. 
H 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A (2002) 4 SCC 85; State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. 
(2007) 3 SCC 755: 2007 (3) SCR 507; Puran Singh vs. State 
of Uttaranchal (2008) 3 SCC 795: 2008 (1) SCR 491; 
Shivasharanappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2013) 5 
SCC 705; State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home 
B Deparlment vs. Abdul Mannan (2011) 8 SCC 65: 2011 (7) 
SCR 1099; Murugesan S/o Muthu and Ors. vs. State through 
Inspector of Police 2012 (10) SCALE 378 - relied on. 
2.1. Though there has been compartmentalization of 
the reasoning, basically there are aspects which require 
C scrutiny. The trial Judge had not accepted the credibility 
of the prosecution witnesses about the involvement of the 
accused in firing as a result of which the deceased and 
the injured persons sustained injuries. For supporting the 
same he had given emphasis on certain discrepancies. 
D The trial Judge had recorded the discrepancies and 
referred to the ballistic report to support his conclusion 
that the prosecution had not establish
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.