LexMAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1033 MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH A ·-.....( V. STATE OF U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2006 FEBRUARY 24, 2009 B [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] ,---1 Penal Code, 1860- ss. 304 (Part II), 307 and 324 -Arms Act, 1950 - s. 25 - Single bullet shot by appellant causing c fatal injuries to one and grievous injuries to others - Order of acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - Correctness of - Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt- Evidence of eye-witnesses as also injured witnesses inconsistent with medical evidence and ). ballistic expert's report in regard to weapon of offence - High D Court disregarded rule of prudence in converting order of acquittal to conviction - Hence, order of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored. Criminal law - Administration of Criminal Justice - Held: E If two views are possible one for acquitfing the accused and other for convicting the accused, the rule of prudence should guide High Court not to disturb order of acquittal made by trial . }t court. " The question which arose for consideration in this F appeal was whether the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 304 (Part II), 307 and 324 IPC and s. 25 of the Arms Act and setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. G .) Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The findings of the High Court in setting aside the order of acquittal of the appellant passed by the 1033 H 1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A trial judge cannot be agreed. On independent analysis of the evidence of the material witnesses, the High Court failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective. The discrepancies coming on record in the evidence of PWs 4, 8, 9, 10 and 13 in no circumstances can be termed to be B minor in nature which, are vital for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. The High Court discarded the important pieces of evidence on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It appears that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the evidence. The discrepancy c and inconsistency in regard to the use and recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession of the appellant is very vital to discard the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to prove that the same weapon of offence was sent to the Ballistic Expert 0 which allegedly was handed over by the prosecution witness to Head Constable in the Police Station. [Paras ·21 and 22] [1053-A-B; 1054-H; 1056-E-F] 1.2 The High Court clearly fell in error while convicting the appellant under section 25 of the Arms Act E without caring to go through the provisions of the Act.· Section 25 of the Act deals with punishment for manufacturing, selling, transferring, converting, repairing, possessing of any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 of the Act. As per the prosecution version the F appellant had used .315 bore rifle, which was owned by his father. Undisputedly, the appellant was charged and tried for the offence punishable under section 27 of the Act for using the said fire arm. The appellant could not have been convicted and punished by the High Court for G committing an offence under section 25 of the Act. [Paras 25 and 26] [1058-D-F] 1.3 Having regard to the entire evidence and having carefully and closely considered the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken H by the trial court was reasonable and plausible. If, on '· : .... MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH V STATE OF UP. 1035 • . ----..( appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant A attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible one as held by the trial court for acquitting the accused and the other for convicting the accused, in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the B trial court. Unless the conclusion of the trial court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable ,-_,, and perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittaL The evidence of the eye-witnesses including injured witnesses does not at all c inspire confidence and their evidence is running in conflict t and contradiction with the medical evidence and ballistic expert's report in regard to weapon of offenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.