LexSATYAVIR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 729 SATYAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2010) FEBRUARY 11, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307 - Accused, armed with licensed gun of his brother, allegedly fired bullet shots at informant's brother and injured him - Trial Court convicted C accused uls 307, /PC and u/s 27 of Arms Act - First Appellate Court held that the firing was accidental and acquitted accused of both the offences - High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal by convicting accused uls.307, /PC - Justification of - Held: Justified - The First Appellate Court o founded its judgment of acquittal on surmises and suspicion, which were not supported by evidence on record - Statement of eye witnesses, medical evidence and investigation conducted by Investigating Officer clearly show that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - The E act of firing gun shots at the victim shows that accused had knowledge that by such an act he may even cause death of the victim, though it is a matter of co-incidence that the gun shots did not injure the victim at any of his vital organs - Arms Act, 1959 - s.27. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Scope for interference - Discussed. F According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused, armed with the licensed gun of his brother, fired bullet G shots at PW3 and injured him as he was enraged with the fact that the farmers in the village had started irrigating their fields from the tubewell of PW1-informant instead of appellant's father. The occurrence WlS allegedly 729 H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A witnessed by PW1, PW-4 and two other witnesses. PW1 is brother of PW3. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s. 307 IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act, 1959. The first Appellate Court 8 held that the firing was accidental and acquitted the appellant of both the said offences. The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the State by convicting him u/s. 307 IPC. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that a) that C the High Court erred in law in setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the First Appellate Court, which was reasoned one and based on a proper appreciation of evidence and thus the High Court ought not to have upset the judgment of acquittal; (b) that no motive was D proved and in absence of a specific motive, the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC; (c) that the expert evidence being at variance and the medical evidence not supporting the injuries allegedly found on the person of the victim, the E benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and (d) that the High Court should have appreciated that it was an accidental firing and the prosecution had not put forth any explanation on record F as to how the weapon (double barrel gun) was broken. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The judgment of acquittal can be interfered by the appellate court. However, it is neither permissible G nor possible to enunciate any straightjacket formula which can universally be applied to all the cases. The court will have to exercise its discretion keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a given case. [Para 15] [748-8-D] H SATYAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 731 Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. vs. State of Maharashra, A 1978 (4) SCC 371; Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227; Mathai Mathews v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 3 SCC 772; Khedu Mohton & Ors. v. State of Bihar 1970 (2) SCC 450; Kunwar Bahadur Singh v. Shiv Baran Singh & Ors. 2001 9 SCC 149; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State represented by the B Public Prosecutor & Anr. 2009 (10) SCC 2006 and Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. 2008 (10) SCC 450, referred to. 2.1. In the present case, the trial court d!scussed ocular as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. The version stated by the eye witnesses, the C medical evidence as well as the veracity of the statement made under Section 313 CrPC formed the basis of the judgment of conviction passed by. the trial court. The court examined in its right perspective one of the most important feature of the case that why the accused was D carrying gun of his brother and discarded the narration and the explanation for keeping the gun with him. [Para 16] [7 48-E-G] 2.2. The First Appellate Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.