LexKALYAN SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KAL YAN SINGH A v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOVEMBER21, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378-Acquittal by Trial Judge-Reversed by High Court in appeal- Challenge to-Held: On facts, view of Trial Court cannot be said to be C wholly unsustainable-As having regard to the fact situation, two views are possible, High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge-Penal Code, 1860-Section 302134. According to the prosecution, all the accused persons including D Appellant surrounded the deceased whereafter Appellant gave an exhortation pursuant to which one of the other accused fired at the deceased resulting in his death. The Trial Judge held that having regard to the enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons, benefit of doubt should be E give11 to Appellant and that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable vis- a-vis the implication of Appellant. Accordingly he was acquitted. High Court, however, held that the findings of the Trial Judge were perverse and contrary to records and accordingly set aside the acquittal of Appellant. He was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. Hence the present appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court unfortunately did not notice that the Trial Judge analyzed the evidence of the said witnesses in great details and found inconsistencies therein. The High Court while dealing with the matter, failed to apply the proper tests in deciding a case where a judgment of acquittal has G been recorded. The views of the Trial Judge cannot be said to be wholly unsustainable. It is now well known that if two views are possible, the Ap!Jellate Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Even if the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, 249 H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9. S.C.R. A it is incumbent on the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that no two views are possible. Having regard to the fact situation of the instant case, as two views are possible, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge. (251-H; 252-A-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 819 of B 2006. From the final Judgment and Final Order dated 8· ll-2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 236/1992. Dr. Kailash Chand, Vijay pratap Singh and Lakhan Singh Chauhan for C the Appellant. D Vishwajit Singh, Philemon Nongbri and Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER This appeal by the appellant herein arises out of a judgment dated 8. 11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby and whereunder the criminal appeal preferred by the State questioning E an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge against three accused persons, namely, Guiab Singh, Ashok Kumar and Kalyan Singh, was allowed in part and the appellant herein was convicted for the alleged commission of offenc~ under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court by reason of the said judgment, however, dismissed the appeal preferred by Budh Singh F who had been convicted by the learned Trial judge under Section 302 of the IPC. The incident occurred at about 4.30 p.m. on 31.7,1989. The ftrSt informant Gyan Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, had gone to take bath at the well ofone Dangal Singh Yadav. Allegedly Gyan Singh, who was also coming G to the well for taking bath, found that his brother had been taking bath using soap on his body when Budh Singh armed with bore double barrel rifle, Kalyan Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel rifle, Ashok Yadav armed with Topidar rifle of Kalyan and Guiab and Dashrath armed with rifles reached the ~ spot and surrounded the well. The appellant herein is said to have given an exhortation pursuant whereto Budh fired at Durga Singh Rawat (the deceased) H )-- KAL YAN SINGH v. ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 251 from behind resulting in his death. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved that A part of the prosecution story whereby Kalyan Singh, Ashok Kumar and Guiab Singh were roped in, inter alia on the ground that Gyan Singh (PW-I) stated in his deposition that Kalyan Singh said: "hit sale main" "he should not escape", but the statement of Munna Lal (PW-2) is t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.