LexSANWAT SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
December 9. 120 SUPREME COURT BEPORTS SANW AT SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (JAFER IMAM, K. ·SuBBA RAO and RAGHUB.AR DAYAL, JJ.) [1961) Appeal-Against acquittal-Principles to be /ollcwed- "Sub- stantial and compelling reason"--Meaning and scope of-Power of Co11rt-Constitution of India, Art. 136. There \Vere t\v.o rival factions in a certain village one con- sisting of Rajputs and the other of cultivators. On a particular festival day both the groups went to a temple for worship and cultivators who reached the temple first occupied a place therein which was usually occupied by Rajputs. Subsequently Rajputs arrived and resented the occupation of the silting place by the cultivators. They shifted to a short distance and after holding a brief conference came back to the temple and attacked the cultivators with guns, swords and lathis as a result of which several persons were injured and t\VO were killed. 43 persons alleged to hav...: taken part in the rioting 'vere put up for trial before the Sessions Judge for having committed offences under s. 302 read with s. 149 ands. r4b of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge held that a common object on the part of the accused to kill the cultivators had not been established and that it had also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty of a particular offence. On these findings the Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. On appeal the High Court after examining the entire evidence found some of the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under 3. 304 read with s. r49 and s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. The appeal in respect of sorne other accused was dismissed as no case had been made out against them beyond any reasonable doubt. On appeal by special leave against the conviction and sentence by the High Court, Held, that the words "substantial and compelling reasons" for setting aside an order of acquittal used by this Court in its decisions were intended to convey the idea that t'.l.n appellate court shall not only bear in mind the principles laid down by the Privy Council in Shea Swarufs case but must also give its clear reasons for coming to the conclusion thal the order of acquittal was wrong. The following results emanate from a discussion 0! the case law on appeals against acquittal:- (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (z) the principles 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 121 laid down in Sheo Swarup's case afford a correct guide for the 1960 appellate court's approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, Sanwal Singh such as (I) "substantial and compelling reasons", (II) "good and & Olhers sufficiently cogent reasons", and (III) "strong reasons", are not v. intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate Court State of Rajaslha1 in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to some to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the ques- tions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal in arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should express the reasons in its judgment, which led it to hold tbat the acquittal was not justified. Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, (1934) L. R. 6r I. A. 398, con- sidered and followed. Nur Mohammad v. Emperor, A.LR. 1945 P.C. 151, Surajpal Singh v. The State, [1952] S.C.R._193, Ajmer Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1953] S.C.R 418, P:<ran v. State of Punjab, A.LR. 1953 S.C. 459, C. M. Narayan v. State of Travancore-Cochin, A.LR. 1953 S.C. 478, Tulsiram Kanu v. The State, A.LR. 1954 S.C. l, Madan Mohar. Singh's case, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 637, Zwinglee Ariel v. State of U. P., A.LR. 1954 S.C. 15, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 322, S. A. A. Biyabani v. The State of Madras, A.IR. 1954 S.C. 645, Aher Raja Khima v. The State of S"urashtra, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1285, Bhag?£1an Das v. The State of Rajasthan, A.LR. 1957 S.C. 589 and Balbir Singh v. State of .Punja_b, A.LR. 1957 S.C. 216, discussed. The High Court approached the instant case from a correct perspective and gave definite findings on a consideration of the entire evidence, and in so doing it did not depart fr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.