SALIM ZIA versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 24-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
394 
SALIM ZIA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
November 24, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crilninal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, '1970;. 
Sec. 2(a) & Indian Penal Code, 1860 <Act 45 of 1860), Sec. 302-Accusetl 
firing at the deceased res1dting in insta11r death-Accused claiming right of 
private defence of person, property-Onus on accused rnay be discharged by 
establishing a n1ere prepo11dera11ce of probabilities either in the cross-examina~ 
tion of prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence. 
_......, 
Appeal against. acquittal-Reversing the order of acquittal-Principles, cri .. 
teria and guidelines. 
~, 
The a.ppellant's father one Jaffar Ali leased out an acre of pctddy growing· 
land to the deceased. 
The prosecution alleged that while the deceased was 
harvesting the crop, the appellant and his brothers went to the field armed· 
with a gun. 
There bad /been some exchange of \Vords between the appellant· 
and the deceased as regards the. share of the produce as agreed to between, 
the deceased and the appellant's father. The appellant was alleged to have fuedi 
at the deceased killing him on the spot. 
Accepting the appellant's version contained in a report stated to have been' 
lodged by him at the police station ten minutes before the First Information 
Report was lodged, the Sessions Judge ae,quitted the appellant. The report 
stated that on the day of the occurrence the deceased v.'as stealing paddy bags_ 
from the appellant's field and on seeing him (the appellant) the deceased fired 
fron1 a revolver \vhich hit the appellant on the right thigh and that finding· 
that the deceased \I/as determined to kill him the appellant fired t\vo or three-· 
rounds \Vith his gun \Vhich hit the deceased. 
On appeal by the State. the High Court set aside the acquittal of the appel-
lant and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 
On further appeal to this Court under s. 2(a) of the Supreme Court· 
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 it V.'as contended 
on behalf of the appellant that the High Court .had acted with material irregu-
G 
larity in ignoring the guidelines laid do\vn by this Court for interfering \vith, 
the judgment and order of acquittal and convicting the appellant \-Vithout refer· 
ring to the conclusions correctly arrived at by the Sessions Judge and secondly 
the appellant \Vas fully justified in opening fire in exercise of the right of 
private defence. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. (a) The High Court was fully justified in reversing the order 
of acquittal of the appellant which was erroneously made by the Sessions 
Judge on the basis of surmises, and conjectures and in convicting him specially' 
SALIM V. U.P. STATE 
395 
when t11e -prosecution story that the appellant fired at the deceased without 
any justifiable provocation was established to the 'hilt by the evidence of a 
number of prosecution witnesses who even according to the Sessions Judg.: 
gave a true account of the occurrence. 
[404D] 
(b) The legal position en1erging from a long line of decisions starting with 
Shea Swarup v. King Enzperor, 61 I.A. 398 is 
"The High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal under s. 
417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 has ful! power to 
review a·t large, the evidence 10n 
~-hich the order of ;:i,cqn:tt::i.! was 
founded and to reach the conclusion that upon 1the e\ ide;i..:e, th~ urtler 
of acquittal should be reversed." [403B-D] 
2. The different pharaseology used in the judgn1enl'5 of this CuL:rt such a'> 
(a) substantial and compelling reasons; < b} good and sufficiently cogent reasons; 
(c) strong reason~; are not intended to curt:J.il (lr place ~iny lirnitalicn orr the 
undoubted power of an appellate court in an ;tppeal again5t acquittal to revtew 
the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion as stated above but 
in doing so it should .give proper consideration :.o such niatters as ( i) the 
A 
B 
c 
views of the trial judge as to the cre<libi!ity of the witnesses (ii) the presump-
D 
tion of innocence in favour of the accused. a presumption certainly not weakened 
by' the fact that he had been acquitted at his trial. (iiiJ the 
ri:;h~ cf the 
accused to the benefit -0f any real and reasonable doubt and (iv) the s:owness 
of an appellate court in disturbing 1a. finding of fact arrived at by a judge 
who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. 
[403E-404A] 
Nur Mo

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