LexRAJESH SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 3 S.C.R. 1070 RAJESH SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2005) MARCH 28, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: c Appeal against acquittal - Scope of - Held: While upsetting the judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must show the perversity in the judgment of the trail court - Appellate court also must record the finding that the view taken by the trial court was not possible in law at all - In the instant 0 case, the judgment of the appellate court very clearly recora:. a finding that the acquittal recorded by the trial court was based on flimsy grounds and was wholly unjustified - High Court has given very good reasons to set aside the findings arrived at by the trial court - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134. E PENAL CODE, 1860: s. 302134 - Murder - An eleven year old boy beaten and hanged to death by three ccused - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - Held: The evidence of eye- F witnesses clearly established that the boy was beaten by three accused in public gaze - Thereafter the accused dragged the boy inside the room and when they opened the door and fled away, the boy was found hanged and dead - Medical evidence established that death was homicidal - It is clear G that all the three accused had taken part in beating the victim and they all dragged him into the room and closed the door- It was for the accused to explain as to how the victim died - It is very clear that all the three accused had acted with common intention of causing the death - High Court rightly H .1070 RAJESH SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 1071 convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment for life uls 302 A with the aid of s. 34 - The reasons given by trial court for . acquittal are wholly unacceptable and can safely be called perverse - High Court having noted the defects in the judgment of the trial court and its casual approach, was justified in reversing the acquittal - Code of Criminal B Procedures, 1973. The three accused-appellants (A-1, A-2, A-3) were prosecuted for causing death of an eleven year old boy. The prosecution case was that on the day of incident at C about 5 PM, when PW-1 and his brother were going to have 'paan' at the 'paan' shop near Pico Centre, belonging to A-1, they saw the three accused beating the son. of PW-1. On being asked, the accused told that the boy had stolen some money. PW-1 requested the accused to spare the child but the accused dragged him D inside the house and shut the door. PW-1 and others kept on shouting from outside. After about half an hour the three accused opened the door a.nd ran away. When PW- 1 and others went inside, they saw the boy hung with a hook in the ceiling and he was dead. PW-1 informed the E Police and lodged the FIR. The trail court acquitted the accused. However, the High Court convicted all the. three accused u/s 302/134 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. F Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is settled law that while dealing with the judgme11t of acquittal, unless the reasoning by the trial G court is fot..::id to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset; and thai vvhere two views are possible even then the judgment of acquittal should not be upset in the sense that the court while dealing with the judgment of H 1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 3 S.C.R. A acquittal must see as to whether the trial court has taken a possible view. [Para 7] [1079-B-C] 1.2. It Is a well settled position and Is reiterated that while upsetting the judgment of acquittal, the appellate 8 court must show the perversity in the judgment of the trial court and further the appellate court also must record the finding that the view taken by the trial court was not possible In law at all. [Para 8) [1079-D·E] 1.3. In the Instant case, the appellate court's C judgment very clearly records a finding that the acquittal recorded by the trial court was based on flimsy grounds and was wholly unjustified. The High Court hds also given very good reasons to set aside the findings arr-". yd at by the trial court. [Para 9) [1079-F-G] D 2.1. The first finding by the trial court was that the FIR was ante-timed on the ground that as per the evidence of PW-4, the Investigating Officer, the dead body of the deceased was dispatched from the spot after being sealed at 9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.