LexSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus JAIRNAIL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 11 S.C.R. 122 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAIRNAIL SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 1918 of 2017) NOVEMBER 13, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 - Appeal against order of acquiual - lme1ference with - When - Held: Judgment C can be i111e1jered only when illegality is noticed in the impugned judgment, it is based on no evidence or/and it contains no reasoning or when the reasoning given are wholly perverse - When the High Court while reversing the conviction by the Session Court. assigns the reasons by appreciating the entire evidence in support of the D E F G H acquiffal, then this Court would not be inclined to inte1fere in the order of acquilfal - On fixts. the High Court reversed the conviction order by assigning cogent reasons, pointing out material contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case - lnjlrmities were rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court after appreciating the evidence - It cannot be said that the infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses - Reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges u/.d07 !PC and s.25(/-A)just and prope1; and is concurred with - Penal Code, 1860 - s.307 - Arms Act, 1959 - s.25(/A). Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 307 !PC and Section 25(1-A) appears to be just and prnper and is concurred with and thus, does not call for any interference. [Para 17][127-G-H] 1.2 The parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye- witnesses and the accused were known to each other then why the complainant-brother of victim in his application made 122 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAIRNAIL SINGH immediately after the incident to the Chief Medical Superintendent did not mention the name of the accused and instead mentioned therein "some sardars". Further, according to the prosecution, the weapon used in commission of offence was recovered from the pocket of the accused the next day, it looked improbable as to why would the ace.used keep the pistol all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and roam all over. The weapon (pistol) alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was not sent for forensic examination with a view to find out as to whether it was capable 123 A B of IJeing used to open fire and, if so, whether the IJullet/palate used could be fired from such gun. Similarly, other seized articles C such us blood-stained shirt and soil were also not sent for forensic examination. Weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the concerned Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating Officer. If, according to the prosecution case, the shot was hit from a very short d.istance as the accused and the victim were D standing very near to each other, then as per the medical evidence of the Doctor (PW-6) a particular type of mark where the bullet was hit should have been there but no such mark was noticed on the body. No explanation was given for this. This also raised some doubt in the prosecution case. [Paras 18-22][128-A-EJ 1.3 The said infirmities were rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. There is no good ground E F to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It cannot be said that the infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses. The prosecution should have taken care of some of the infirmities noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have been taken before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. It was, however, not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, G accordingly, rightly given to the respondent by the High Court. [Paras 23, 24][128-G-H; 129-AJ 1.4 Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in this appeal, unless any kind of illegality is noticed in the impugned H ' 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l I S.C.R. A judgment, such judgment cannot be i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.