LexSATHYAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 95 : 2023 INSC 703 95 CASE DETAILS SATHYAN v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 2363 of 2023) AUGUST 11, 2023 [ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : (i) Whether the conviction, solely on the basis of offi cial witnesses is sustainable in the instant facts? (ii) Whether the delay of nearly 3 years in fi ling the challan can be said to be materially aff ecting the correctness of the judgement of the lower court as also the impugned judgement? Abkari Act – s. 8 – Conviction under: Held : No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (offi cial witnesses) – In the instant case, conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses cannot be faulted with – Delay was in two aspects according to appellant; one, the contraband being produced before the Magistrate and two, in the completion of investigation – Appellant was arrested on 01.10.2003 and 02.10.2003 was a holiday, therefore contraband seized was produced on 03.10.2003 – This being the uncontroverted position, the production of the seized Arrack cannot be said to be delayed – As far as submission of fi nal report after 3 years is concerned, mere urging delay and casting suspicion on investigation without any evidence being led in furtherance cannot be sustained – Thus, appellant’s grounds to challenge the correctness of the impugned judgment fail. [Paras 26, 27, 29 and 30] Sentence/sentencing – Modifi cation of: Held : Appellant arrested for carrying fi ve litres of Arrack in his autorickshaw – Trial Court sentenced appellant to one year of imprisonment 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. – High Court endorsed the fi nding of the trial Court – More than 20 years have passed since the commission of the off ence, thus sentence of appellant modifi ed to period of three months, simple imprisonment. [Para 33] Evidence – Conviction solely on basis of offi cial witnesses: Held : If the evidence of a police offi cer/offi cial witness is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on fi rm ground. [Para 22] Evidence – Testimony of offi cial witnesses – Correctness of: Held : The testimonies of offi cial witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – The correctness or authenticity is only to be doubted on “any good reason” which, quite apparently is missing from the instant case. [Para 26] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Investigation – Plea of investigation not being fair: Held : Questioning investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case – In instant case, nothing was put forward to show that there may be a reasonable ground for the presence of bias or that there may be “a real danger of bias”. [Paras 16 and 20] Delay/Laches: Held : A “fair trial”, is a right fl owing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial”. [Para 28] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120: [2020] 9 SCR 245 – followed. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 : [1970] 1 SCR 457; N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India (2012) 4 SCC 653 : [2012] 2 SCR 433; Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 588 : [2013] 8 SCR 323; State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 144; Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 674 : 97 SATHYAN v. STATE OF KERALA [2015] 6 SCR 175; Dilawar v. State of Haryana (2018) 16 SCC 521 : [2018] 5 SCR 655 – relied on. Tahir v. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338 : [1996] 3 SCR 757; Karamjiti Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (2003) 5 SCC 291: [2003] 3 SCR 25; Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 784; A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak (1992)1 SCC 225 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2363 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2019 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No. 2822 of 2008. Appearances: James P. Thomas, Adv. for the Appellant. Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Subhash Chandran K.R., Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.