RAMAKANT RAI versus MADAN RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 25-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
---./ 
RAMAKANT RAI 
A 
v. 
MADAN RAI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 136-Appeal against acquittal by High Court-At the instance 
of interested private parties-Maintainability of-Held : Appeals are C 
entertained by Special Leave granted by Supreme Court-Howeve1~ appeals 
, are not granted as a matter of course but for good and sufficient reasons. 
Article 136-Power under-Nature and scope of-Discussed 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 440-Murder of young boy over D 
property dispute-Conviction of main accused under sections 302 and 440 
and others under section 440-Acquittal by High Col!rt holding the 
prosecution case to be incredible-On appeal, held: In view of unsatisfactory 
nature of disposal of the appeal and inherent improbabilites and 
incongruities in the conclusions, unreasoned judgment of High Court liable 
to be set aside-Order of triai Court upheld 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 374 and 386-Appeal 
from conviction before High Court-Necessity of giving reasons-Held: 
When appellate court takes a contrary view to that of lower court, it is 
necessary to clearly indicate reasons therefor-Plea that even though 
arguments are not very elaborately reasoned, yet it can be supplemented F 
by arguments is fallacious-Arguments are not substitutes for reasoning-
However, when appellate court concurs with the views of trial Court there 
is no necessity of giving reasons. 
Criminal trial : 
Eyewitnesses-Testimony of-Credibility, test to determine-
Discussed- Further, when eyewitnesses account is credible and trustworthy, 
medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as 
conclusive. 
17 
G 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Proof beyond reasonable doubt- 'Reasonable doubt '-Meaning of-
Probability, and degrees of it-Concept of-Discussed. 
According to the prosecution, there was a long standing dispute 
between the parties over properties. On the date of occurrence accused 
B came with his licensed gun to the spot and his three sons were armed 
with lath is and started demolishing the walls. Appellant-father of the 
deceased, informant and his young son requested them not to do so. 
Accused fired one gun shot and as a result PW-2 , PW-5 and many 
1 
villagers came to the spot of occurrence. Thereafter, the accused fired 
c 
a gun shot at the young boy which proved fatal. PW-2 and PW-5 
witnessed the incident. FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out 
and charges were framed. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the 
accused under section 302 and 440 IPC, however, acquitted the other 
three accused of charges under section 302 read with section 34 IPC 
but ~onvicted them under Section 440 JPC. High Court acquitted the 
D accused persons. Hence the present appeals, one by the appellant and 
the othe; by the State challenging only the acquittal of the sons of the 
accused. 
Appellant-father of the deceased contended that the conclusions 
E of the High Court were without any basis _a.nd the judgment was 
practically unreasoned and conclusions cannot be substitute for reasons. 
Acquitted accused person contended that the special leave petition 
at the instance of the father of the deceased was not maintainable; and 
F that when two views are possible and the High Court within well-
chiseled conclusions has accepted a view it would not be proper to 
.... 
exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1. There is no slightest doubt about the competence of 
a private party as distinguished from the State; to invoke the jurisdiction 
of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 
" 
against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstance 
that the Cr. P.C., 1973 does not provide for an appeal to the High Court· 
\.----
H against an order of acquittal by a subordinate Court, at the instance 
RAMAKANT RAJ v. MADAN RAI 
19 
of a private party, has no relevance to the question of the power of this A 
Court under Article 136. Appeals under Article 136 are entertained by 
special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private 
party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court, and special leave is 
not granted as a matter of course but only for good 
and sufficient reasons, well established by the practice of this Court. B 
Hence, the special leave petition filed by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.