MAHAMADKHAN NATHEKHAN versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 10-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 7 S.C.R. 777 
MAHAMADKHAN NATHEKHAN 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No.162 OF 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal in 
case of acquittal - Interference by the High Court - Scope of 
A 
B 
- Held: High Court not expected to merely substitute its C 
opinion for that of the trial court only because it is permitted 
to do so and because it has the power to do so.- High Court 
has to correct an error of Jaw - It has to exercise its discretion 
very cautiously, keeping in mind the acquittal of the accused 
and the rights of the victim - On facts, the High Court convicted D 
the appellants u/ss. 302134, 3021114 and uls. 25(1)(a) of the 
1959 Act and sentenced them accordingly, setting aside the 
acquittal by the trial court - High Court misread the material 
evidence and reversed the decision of the trial court - Thus, 
order of conviction and sentence imposed by High Court set 
E 
aside and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trail court 
restored - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 3021114 - Arms Act, 
1959 - s. 25(1)(a). 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is the obligation of the High Court to 
consider and identify the error in the decision of the trial 
court and then decide whether the error is gross enough 
to warrant interference. The High Court is not expected 
F 
to merely substitute its opinion for that of the trial court 
G 
only because it is permitted to do so and because it has 
the power to do so. It has to correct an error of law or 
fact significant enough to necessitate overturning the 
verdict of the trial court. The High Court has to exercise 
777 
H 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A its discretion very cautiously, keeping in mind the 
acquittal of the accused and the rights of the victim. (Para 
8) [783-G-H; 784-A] 
1.2 On facts, homicidal death has not been 
8 established. There was no motive for the occurrence. 
The High Court misread the material evidence and 
reversed the decision of the trial court by convicting the 
accused. The conviction and sentence imposed by the 
High Court on the appellants is set aside and the 
C judgment of acquittal rendered by the trail court is 
restored. [Para 12, 13, 14) .£787-8, C, E, F] 
Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam 2013 (3) SCR 
830:(2013) 12 sec 406 - referred to. 
0 
*Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (2) SCR 
E 
$30:(2007) 4 sec 415 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2007 (2) SCR 630 
2013 (3) SCR 830 
Relied on 
Referred to 
Para 8 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 162 of 2007 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2006 and 
22.01.2007 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 865/1986. 
WITH 
G Crl.A. Nos. 406 and 695 of 2007. 
Suhil Kumar, D.G. Karia, Aditya Kumar, Sanjay jain, 
Harpuneet Singh, Manisha T. Kariya, Sushi! Kr. Gupta, J.M 
Pathan, LR. Pathan, M. A.Sheikh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, for the 
H Appellant. 
· MAHAMADKHAN NATHEKHAN. v. STATE, OF 
779 
GUJARAT 
Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behra, -Preeti Bhardwaj,' Swati 
A -
Vaibhav for the Respondent. 
· · ol ' 
- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-, C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. All three appeals are preferred. 
against the judgment dated 26.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal 
B · 
no.865 of.1986 passed by the High· Court of Gujarat at 
Ahmadabad. 
_ 2. Accused no.1 A~af Afkhan Kalandarkhan, accused no.2 
Mahamadkhan Nathekhan and accused-"no.3 Vora lsmailbhai c' 
Daudbhai were tried for the -charge under Sections 302, 120(8) 
and 201 of IPC and Section 25(A) of The Arms Act, 1959 for 
committing the murder of Firozbhai Abdul Latif by firing gun shot 
on the right side of his chest, when he was in the motor car of 
accused no.3 in the early hours on 21.2.1984 in Sessions . D 
Case no.44 of 1985 on the file of Additional Sessions Ju,dgei, 
Ahmadabad (Rural) at Narol. The Trial Court acquitted the 
accused from all the charges leveled against them. Challenging 
the same the State of Gujarat preferred appeal in Criminal 
Appeal no.865 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat 
E' 
at Ahmadabad and the High Court held that the charge of 
criminal conspiracy aga_inst accused nos.1 to 3 has not been 
proved by the prosecution and the offence under Section 
25(1 )(a) of the Arms Act 'is not proved as against accused ·no.3 
and acquitted them of the said charges. At the same time, the 
F 
High Court found accused nos, 1 and 3 guil

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