LexMURUGAN AND ANR. versus STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS, TAMIL NADU ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.• [2008] 13 S.C.R 1160 A MURUGAN AND ANR. V. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS, TAMIL NADU ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2001) B SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] c Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973; s .. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate Court - HELD: s. 378 imposes no restriction on powers of appellate Court in dealing with appeals against order of ac- quittal - While protection given to the accused by criminal D process is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed 'r legitimization of trivialities would hamper administration of ~ criminal justice -- In the instant case, grounds of acquittal re- lied upon by trial court were rightly held by High Court unten- able - Analysis made by High Court to se,t aside order of ac- E quittal passed by trial court does not suffer from any infirmity - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307. The appellants-accused, namely, A-1 to A-3, were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable ulss F 307 and 3071109 IPC. The prosecution_ case was that a quarrel took place between the mother of PWs 1 and 2 ·an~. the wife of A-3 and PW-2 pacified them. The accused . came to know of the quarrel and got an impression that PW-2, in support of his mother, abused the wife of A-3. The .following morning at about 7.30 A.M., A-1 to A-3 way- G laid PWs 1 and 2 near the well when they were going to take bath. A-3 caught hold of PW-2 from behind his back and A-1 and A-2 attacked him indiscriminately with 'Aruval'. When PW-1 and PW"5 tried to intervene, the accused .th.re~tened· to kill. them. On account of the multiple inju- H 1160 > : MURUGAN & ANR. v. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC 1161 ·.PROSECUTOR, MADRAS, TAMIL NADU ANR. ries received, PW-2 fell down and became unconscious. A The accused fled away. PW-1 and PW-5 took the victim to the hospital. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the· High Court convicted them u/s 307 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for four yeas and to pay a ~ fine of Rs.5,000/- each. B In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was con- tended for the appellants that an order of acquittal can- not be interfered by the appellate court except for com- pelling reasons and, in the instant case, the High Court did not keep in view the. parameters of appeal against C acquittal. It was submitted that even if two views were possible, the view supporting the accused had to be ac- cepted and since the trial court had precisely done it, there was no reason for interference. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: .1 Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 imposes no restrictions on the powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power E to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evi- dence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to de~ · termination by:the High C-ourt in an appeal against an or~. F der of acquittal. In Chandrappa's* case, this Court has culled out the general principles regarding powers of ap- pellate court while dealing an appeal against order of ac- quittal. [para 22 and 46] [1174,A-B; 1188,C] *Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007(2) G SCR 630=2007 (4) SCC 415.; Sanwat Singh v. State. of Rafasthan (1961) 3 SCR 120; Bhagwan Singh v. State o'f M.P (2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana ,T;hirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Courl of A.P 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 379 = (2002) 6 SCC . 470; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003t12 SCC H 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 S.C.R. A 606; Kallu v. State of MP (2006) 10 SCC 313; Prandas v. B State AIR 1954 SC 36; Surajpal Singh v. State 1952 SCR 193; Atley v. State of UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 197 4 (1) SCR 489 = 1973 (2) sec 793 - relied on. Shea Swarup v. R. Emperor (1934) 61 IA 398; Nur Mohd. v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151 - referred to. Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953) SCR 418; Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (1955) 2 SCR 1285; M. G c Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405; K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P 1979 (2) SCR 265 = (1979) 1 SCC 355; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 (2) Suppl, SeR 265 = (1996) 9 sec 225; and Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat 2002 (1) SCR 1011 = (2002) 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.