LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus FAZAL REHMAN ABDUL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 16 S.C.R. 244 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. FAZAL REHMAN ABDUL (Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2011) (PART-5) MARCH 21, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, C 435, 436, 201 and 212 - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss.3(2)(i)(ii}, 3(3) and (4), 5 and 6 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss.3 and 7 r/w. s.25(1-A}, (1-B)(a) - Explosives Act, 1884 - ss.3, 4(a},(b}, 5 and 6- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s.4 - Serial bomb- D blast in Bombay - Acquittal of respondents-accused - By Designated Court - Appeal by State - Held. In the facts of the case, respondent-accused Nos. 17, 24, 75 and 94 were wrongly acquitted under charge of conspiracy - Hence convicted for the charge of larger conspiracy and sentenced E to life imprisonment - Acquittal of rest of the respondent- accused upheld. Appeal - Against acquittal - Scrutiny of - By appellate court - Criteria to be followed - Discussed. F In the Bombay blast in the year 1993, 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured and there had been loss of property worth several crores. 40 of the accused, since absconding, were not put to trial. The Designated Court framed charges against 138 accused persons. G During trial, 11 accused died, 2 turned hostile and 2 were discharged. The rest of the accused were charged. The respondents-accused had been charged for general conspiracy which was framed against all the H 244 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. FAZAL REHMAN 245 ABDUL accused persons for the offences punishable under A Section 3(3) TADA and Section 120-B IPC, read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA and read with Sections 302, 307 ,326,324,427 ,435,436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (I-A), (l·B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9-B B (1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. In addition, the respondents-accused were also charged for other offences. c The respondents-accused in the present appeals were acquitted on certain charges and particularly the main charge of conspiracy. The State filed the present 19 appeals against the respondent-accused challenging their acquittal. · D Allowing the Appeal Nos. 39112011, 1027 of 2012, 395 of 2011, 397 of 2011 and dismissing the rest of the appeals, the Court E 1 HELD: 1. The appellate court should not ordinarily \set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider F the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration G the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject- matter of scrutiny by the 'appellate court. In exceptional cases where there are c'ompelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the H 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the B other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration c irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if It is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. [Para 9) [260-C- H; 261-A] D CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2011: 2. The Designated Court after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent-A-76 tho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.