SHRI SATISH KUMAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1144 · Decided: 02-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1144
1144
SHRI SATISH KUMAR & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2017)
MARCH 02, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA
AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case was
that the informant was the daughter of the victim-deceased – As per
her statement, the deceased had left in the morning on the fateful
day to meet one ‘K’ and thereafter he had to join duty – When he
did not return home till 6 pm she called him but his phone was
switched off – Next morning, she called the Forest Guard who told
her that the deceased had not come to duty – Thereafter she called
accused-S whose house was near her house and sought number of
‘K’ – Police came to her house and she found that her father had
died due to gun shot by accused-S and accused-R and the body
was lying in the forest – The dead body and murder weapon were
allegedly recovered on the disclosure statements made by the two
accused stated to have been made in presence of PW-2 and PW-3 –
Trial court acquitted all the accused for the reason that prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt –
On State’s appeal against acquittal, High Court reversed the order
of acquittal holding that the finding of trial court that dead body
was recovered prior to the disclosure statement made by the
accused-S and accused-R was not correct and that the dead body
was recovered only on the basis of the disclosure statements – Appeal
against conviction – Held: The statements of the prosecution
witnesses did not appear to be trustworthy – The entire prosecution
case was based on the telephone call made by accused-S but no
call details were produced to verify their correctness – The other
incriminating circumstance weighed with the High Court was the
recovery of the single barrel gun with the cartridge from the house
of accused-L, the licence holder – The report of the forensic science
laboratory only showed that such gun was used in the commission
of crime, but prosecution failed to establish which of the accused
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
actually used the gun – The disclosure statement of accused-S was
that he fired from the gun – But the recovery of the gun was on the
basis of disclosure statement of accused-R – There was no direct
evidence as to the use of licensed gun of accused-L, though the
gun along with empty and live cartridges were recovered on the
statement of accused-R – In the absence of evidence as to which of
the two accused fired upon the deceased, the accused cannot be
convicted only on the basis of recovery of gun used in the
commission of crime – Prosecution also failed to prove any motive
on the part of the accused – Thus, in the absence of any evidence
led by the prosecution as to who fired the fatal shot, the benefit of
doubt to the accused persons was rightly granted by the trial court
– High Court interfered with the findings of acquittal even though
the conclusion drawn by the trial court was a possible conclusion
on the basis of evidence on record – As regards conviction under
ss.25 and 27 of Arms Act, none of the conditions mentioned in those
sections were attracted – Conviction of the appellants for the offences
punishable under s.302 r/w s.34 and ss.25 and 27 of the Arms Act
is set aside – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25 and 27.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 – Jurisdiction of
Appellate Court to interfere with order of trial court – Scope of –
Held: While exercising the jurisdiction under s.389 of the Code,
especially when trial court has recorded a finding of not proving
the guilt, the Appellate Court should interfere only if the findings
are perverse and are not possible by any reasonable person – High
Court in an appeal against acquittal does not interfere only if the
Appellate Court has a different view on process of evidence than
what was taken by the trial court – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w
s.34.
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Motive, absence of –
Effect on prosecution case – Held: In a case based upon
circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant – In the instant case,
prosecution failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused –
As per the statement of PW-1, the motive was land dispute with
accused-S – If such was a motive, then there was no reason for her
to contact accused-S who was said to be staying near her house, to
find out whereabouts of her father (victim-deceased) – The said

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