STATE OF PUNJAB versus SUKHCHAIN SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 923 
+ 
~ 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
II. 
SUKHCHAIN SINGH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2002) 
NOVEMBER 7, · 2008 
B 
I 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Ambit and scope of 
- Explained - HELD: In view of the principles enunciated by 
the Court, there is no scope for interference with order of 
acquittal passed by trial court as affirmed by High Court -
Penal Code - ss. 3021149, 3071149 and.3261149. 
D 
~ 
s.374(2) - Appeal challenging conviction - HELD: The 
High Court has rightly indicated the reason as to why the 
convict stood at a different footing and how accusations have 
been fully established against him - Penal 'Code, ss.302134, 
E 
307134 and 326. 
The respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2002~ 
filed by the State against acquittal of the accused, and the 
~ 
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2002 along with 
two other accused were prosecuted for causing death of F 
two of the members of the complainant party and injuries 
to others. The prosecution case was that with respect to 
elections to various offices of the Truck Union, there 
developed an ill-will between the complainant party and 
the accused persons. On the day of occurrence, the G 
accused, who were five in number, armed with a gun and 
gandasas, went in a truck to the Truck Union Office and 
attacked the complainant party. Two of the accused fired 
gun shots one after the other at the complainant party and 
923 
H 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
three of the accused caused injuries to their opponents. 
+~ 
All the accused then fled away in the same truck. Two of 
the victims died at the spot ~nd the third one was taken 
to the hospital. The remaining two informed the police. 
One of the accused died during the pendency of the trial. 
B 
The trial court acquitted two of the accused and 
convicted the other two. The High Court upheld the 
judgment and order of the trial court. 
-+--
In the appeal filed by the State against the judgment 
c of the High Court upholding the acquittal of the accused, 
and the appeal filed by. one of the accused against the 
judgment of the High Court upholding his conviction, the 
issue for consideration before the Court was as to the 
ambit and the scope of the power of the appellate court 
D 
in an appeal against an order of acquittal. 
Dismissing both the appeals, the Court 
...,,... 
HELD: 1. This Court in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State 
of Karnataka*, has culled out the general principles 
E 
enumerated in various judgments regarding powers of 
the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against 
an order of acquittal. An appellate court has full power 
to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon 
which the order of acquittal is founded .. The Code of 
.....__ 
F 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or 
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate 
court on the evidence before it may reach its own 
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. An 
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case 
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the 
G accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available 
to him under the fundamental principle of criminal 
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be 
innocent unles_s he is proved guilty by a competent court 
of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SUKHCHAIN SINGH & ANR. 
925 
__,.... 
~ 
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further A 
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 
If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis 
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not 
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 
[Para 37] (947-H; 948-A, B, E, F] 
B 
~ 
*Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007 (2) 
SCR 630 = 2007 (4) SCC 415, relied on. 
Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313; Ramanand 
Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, (2003) 12 SCC 606; Harijana c 
Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2002) 6 
SCC 470; Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85; 
Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57; 
Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; 
K. Gopa/ Reddy v. State of A.P (1979) 1 SCC 355; Shivaji D 
" -.-
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 793; 
M.G. Agarwal v. Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.