STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ISLAM

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 988 · Decided: 24-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 6 S.C.R. 988 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
ISLAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2005) 
MAY 24, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 304 (Part-II) - Accused 
hit the victim on his head with deadly weapon, resulting in his 
C death -
Convicted u/s. 302 and sentenced to life 
imprisonment by trial court - High Court converted the 
sentence from s. 302 to s. 304 (Part-II) as accused had already 
undergone detention for more than six years - On appeal held: 
Order of conversion of sentence not justified -
In the 
D background of the consistent evidence, it cannot be said that 
accused had no intention to kill the deceased - There was 
some pre-meditation on the part of accused when he went to 
his house after a minor scuffle and came back armed with a 
deadly weapon and in furtherance of that intention struck the 
E deceased with that weapon repeatedly at a vital part of his 
body - Also, none of the ingredients to bring the case under 
exception (4) to s. 300 proved - Thus, order of High Court is 
set aside and that of the trial court is restored. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Order of 
F acquittal passed by the High Court - Interference with - Held: 
Is permissible, when consideration by the High Court is, 
misconceived and perverse. 
Administration of criminal justice - Possibility of two views 
G - One pointing to the guilt of the accused and other his 
innocence - Courts to adopt view in favour of accused. 
H 
It is alleged that altercation took place between 
respondent No. 1 and others who had assembled for a 
988 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ISLAM 
989 
meeting. Respondent No. 1 and others went back home 
A 
and came back armed with Farsa. Respondent No. 1 hit 
'J' repeatedly on his head with Farsa. The trial court 
convicted respondent No. 1 under Section 302 IPC and 
sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court set 
aside the conviction of respondent No. 1 under Section 
B 
302 and converted it under Section 304 Part-II IPC 
considering that the relations between respondent No. 1 
and 'J' were cordial; that only one blow by respondent 
No. 1 on the head of 'J' proved fatal; and that respondent 
No. 1 had already undergone detention for more than six c 
years. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 When this Court exercises its jurisdiction 
under Article 136, it definitely exercises a discretionary D 
jurisdiction but such discretionary jurisdiction has to be 
exercised in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage 
of justice. If the consideration by the High Court is 
misconceived and perverse, there is nothing in law which 
prevents this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under 
E 
Article 136 against an order of acquittal when such 
acquittal cannot be sustained at all, in view of the 
evidence of record. [Para 15] [996-F-H] 
1.2 In criminal cases if two views are possible, one 
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the 
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused 
should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the 
court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. 
F 
A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the 
guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent. The 
G 
principle to be followed by appellate court considering an 
appeal against an order of acquittal is to Interfere only 
when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so. 
[Paras 16 and 17] [897-A-C] 
H 
> ~· ·" 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3 In reversing an acquittal, this Court keeps in mind 
that presumption of innocence in favour of the accused 
is fortified by an order of acquittal and if the view of the 
High Court is reasonable and founded on materials on 
record, this Court should not interfere. However, if this 
B Court is of the opinion that the acquittal is not based on 
a reasonable view, then it may review the entire material 
and there would be no limitation on this Court's 
jurisdiction under Article 136 to come to a just decision 
quashing the acquittal. [Paras 19, 20] [998-C-D] 
c 
2.1 It cannot be said that respondent No. 1 had no 
intention to kill the deceased. It may be true that initially 
there was no pre-mediation or intention of respondent 
No. 1 but the intention can develop on the spot and in 
the instant case, there is some amount of pre-meditation 
D on the part of respondent No. 1 when after a

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