LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN TH. SECY.HOME DEPT. versus ABDUL MANNAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2011] 7 S.C.R. 1099 STATE OF RAJASTHAN TH. SECY.HOME DEPT. v. ABDUL MANNAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2008) JULY 07, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 3021149, 148, 3241149 and 449 - Communal violence c - Prosecution case that out of the mob of 50 to 60 persons, 8 to 10 persons armed with weapons forcibly entered the house of complainant and inflicted injuries to two victims and the Complainant - Victims succumbed to their injuries in the hospital - Three eye-witnesses to the incident - Complainant, 0 an injured witness - Trial court convicted and sentenced accused 'AM', ~·and 'AZ' under Sections 3021149, 148, 3241 149 and 449 -' However, the High Court acquitted the accused - On appeal held: There was establishment of a complete chain of everits and clear identification of the E persons assailing the deceased - Medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence - Cumulative effect of the ocular evidence and documentary evidence shows that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt - Some discrepancies or some variation "in minor details of the incident are immaterial - It is F established that more than five person constituted an unlawful assembly and in furtherance to their common object and intent, assaulted and caused injuries to vital parts of the bodies of the deceased, ultimately resulting in their death - High Court did not appropriately appreciate the material G witness - Thus, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court is perverse and is set aside, and that of the trial court restored. 1099 H • 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A s. 149 - Common Object - Inference of - When - Explained. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference by Supreme Court 8 - General principles - Explained - On facts, order of acquittal cannot be sustained since if is based on some contradiction in the statements of the witnesses while completely ignoring the entire case of the prosecution particularly when prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. c According to the prosecution on the fateful day, out of the mob of 50-60 persons, 8 to 10 persons forcibly entered the house of complainant. These persons were armed with knife, pharsi, sword and lathies. They inflicted D injuries to 'GN', 'HN' and the complainant. 'GN' and 'HN' were taken to the hospital and they succumbed to the injuries. PW-5 'KL', PW-7 'BA' and PW-4 'MM' witnessed the occurrence. FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. The prosecution examined seven witnesses E including three eye-witnesses. The trial court acquitted 'H' and 'M' and other two. However, convicted 'AM', 'A' and 'AZ.' under Sections 302/149, 148, 324/149 and 449 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. The High Court acquitted all the accused. Therefore, the appellant-State F filed the instant appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The instant case is a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court. G The judgment of the· High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The finding of guilt and the quantum of punishment awarded by the trial court is concurred with. [Para 23] [1128-C] H 2.1. Against an order of acquittal, an appeal by the • STATE OF RAJASTHAN TH. SECY.HOME DEPT. v. 1101 ABDUL MANNAN & ANR. State is maintainable to this Court only with the leave of A the Court. On the contrary, if the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is set aside by the High Court, and the accused is sentenced to death, or life imprisonment, or imprisonment of more than 10 years, then the right of appeal of the accused is treated as an absolute right subject to the provisions of Articles 134 (1) (a) and 134 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India and Section B 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In light of this, it is obvious that appeal against acquittal is considered on slightly different parameters compared to c an ordinary appeal preferred to this Court. When an accused is acquitted of a criminal charge, a right vests in him to be a free citizen and this Court is very cautious in taking away that right. The presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the fact of D acquittal of the accused under our criminal jurisprudence. The courts have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.