LexMURUGESAN AND ORS. versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 13 S.C.R. 1 MURUGESAN AND ORS. v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2009) OCTOBER 12, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 1208, 147, 148, 332 and 302 rlw. ss. 3411091149 - Prosecution under - Of 23 accused - Acquittal of all the accused by trial court - High Court C convicting 19 of the accused ulss. 1208 and 302 rlw. ss. 341 149 - Some of the accused also convicted u/s. 332 rlw s. 149 - Two convicts died- On appeal by the remaining 17 convicts, held: Conviction by High Court not justified - The view taken by the trial court was a possible view, and could not have been D interdicted by the High Court - The conclusions reached by High Court were of fragile nature - The evidence of the two eye-witnesses, the FIR and the dying declaration were not trustworthy - Acquittal order passed by trial court confirmed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal E against acquittal - Power of High Court - Held: Reversal of acquittal can be done by the High Court only if conclusions recorded by the trial court do not reflect a possible view - So long as the view taken by the trial court is not impossible to F be arrived at and reasons therefor, relatable to the evidence and materials on record, are disclosed, any further scrutiny in exercise of the power under s.378 is not called for-Appeal. Dying Declaration - Efficacy of - Certification by the doctor regarding the condition of the deceased must be G carefully balanced with all other surroundings facts and circumstances - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32. 1 H .. ~ 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A Appeal- To Supreme Court u/s.379 Cr.P.C. and u/s. 136 of Constitution of India - Difference between -Explained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 379 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 8 Words and Phrases - Expression 'possible view' - Meaning of. The prosecution case was that a land dispute between D-2 and A-1 had led to the murder of A-1 S's brother for which D-1, D-2 and D-3 were arrayed as c accused and they were on bail. It was the further case of the prosecution that another case was also pending against D-1 and D-2 in respect of an incident of bomb attack on the rival party. In that case D-1 and D-2 were arrested and brought to the court by police constables 0 PW5 and PW7, for execution of their bail bonds. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 alongwith D-3 had come to meet D-1 and D-2 in the court complex. On the same day, A-14, A-15 and A-16, who were also under arrest in another case, were brought to the court for further remand. While the other accused persons had come to the court complex to meet E A-14, A-15 and A-16, the said three accused exhorted the other accused persons to kill D-1 and D-2, at which they inflicted fatal injuries on D-1, D-2 and D-3. D-1 had run towards the Police Station near the court F complex and made a statement (Ex P-1 ), on the basis of which FIR was registered. In hospital, D-1 made a Dying Declaration on the certification of the Medical Officer (PW- 21 ). While the Dying Declaration was being recorded, D- 1 slipped into coma and died thereafter. D-2 and D-3 had G died on way to the hospital. The police constables (PWs 5 and 7) were eye-witnesses and they submitted a report (Ex P-2) in this regard. All the 23 persons arrayed as accused in the instant case (A-1 to A-23) were charged u/ss. 1208, 147, 148, 332 H and 302 r/w. ss. 34/109/149 IPC. The trial court acquitted MURUGESAN AND ORS. v. STATE THROUGH 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE all the accused of all the charges. High Court set aside A the acquittal of A-1 to A-19 and convicted them u/ss. 1208 and 302 r/w s. 34/149 IPC. Some of the accused were also found guilty u/ss. 148 and 332 r/w. s. 149 IPC. A-6 and A· 11 died in the meanwhile. Hence the present appeal by the remaining 17 convicts (appellants). B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The power of the High Court extends 'to a review of the entire evidence on the basis of which the order of acquittal had been passed by the trial court· and C thereafter to reach the necessary conclusion as to whether order of acquittal is required to be maintained or not. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of O innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.