[2008] 14 S.C.R. 124
A
MUBARIK KHAN
~--
)
v.
NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS.
t(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002)
B
OCTOBER 1,, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
,....._
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal against
c acquittal by High Court - Scope of interference - High Court
acquitted the accused on grounds that the evidence of sole
eyewitness was unreliable and there was considerable delay
in dispatch of FIR to Magistrate - Held: View taken by High
Court was a possible view - Hence, interference not called for.
D
The High Court directed acquittal of the accused on
grounds that the ·evidence of the sole eyewitness was
\
unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch
f··
of FIR to the Magistrate. Hence the instant appeals.
E
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The view taken by the High Court is a possible
view and therefore considering the parametres relating to
cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, it is not a fit
case for interference by this Court. [Para 1] [125-C,D]
F
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
,.
No. 612 of 2002
>i~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal
G Appeal No. 495 of 1996
WITH
~
Crl. No. 1105 of 2002
Shanshindra Tripathi, Sharad Tripathi, M.P. Shorawala,
H
124
MUBARIK KHAN v. NABABKHA@ NAWAB
125
AND ORS.
Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave and Niraj Sharma for
A
the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Having heard learned coun-
sel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a
B
case where any interference is called for. The High Court has
found that the evidence of PW5, who was stated to be the sole
eye-witness, unreliable. Apart from that there is considerable
delay in dispatch of the first information report to the court.
Though in all cases that may not be the determinative factor, but c
when considered with other aspects that assumes importance.
The High Court has dealt with this aspect in detail. The view
taken by the High Court is 9 possible view and therefore con-
sidering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of
acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for
0
interference.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 110512002:
3. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/
E
2002, this appeal is also dismissed.
B.B.B.
Appeals dismissed.
Lex