LexSURAJ SINGH versus ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.CR. 286 .. A SURAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1072 of 2004) B JULY 24, 2008 .[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM L SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s.378 -Appeal against acquittal - Powers of High Court i. - HELD: Both questions of fact and of law are open to deter- mination by High Court in an appeal against acquittal - High Court has full power to reappreciate, review and reconsider evidence at large, material on which order of acquittal is D founded and to reach its own conclusion on such evidence - Penal Code, 1860- s.302. ..( _, Evidence: E Eye witness account vis-a-vis medical evidence - Ac- cused shot dead his cousin -Acquittal by trial court on grounds of medical evidence being at variance with other evidence, and discrepancies - High Court recorded conviction - HELD: It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to hypotheti- cal answers of medical witnesses to exclude eye witness ac- F count which was to be tested independently and not to be treated as "variable" taking the medical evidence as "constant" "- ·~ - On facts, High Court rightly held that trial court erroneously concluded ocular evidence to be at variance with medical evi- dence - Besides, there was no discrepancy in evidence of G eye-witnesses - Merely because witnesses were close re/a- tives of deceased, that would not affect credibility of their evi- dence - Penal Code, 1860- s.302. ~4 The accused-appellant along with his wife was pros- H 286 SURAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 287 . ,, ecuted for the murder of his cousin. The prosecution case A was that altercation took place between the accused and the deceased over a land dispute, whereupon the former fired gunshots and his wife fired from a revolver at the deceased who died instantaneously. The trial Court ac- quitted both the accused. But the High court set aside B --.J the acquittal of the accused-appellant and convicted him u/s.302 IPC. In the instant appeal filed by the convict, it was con- tended for the appellant that the High Court did not keep c in view the parameters of an appeal against acquittal, and when two views were possible on the basis of evidence on record and the one favourable to the accused was taken by the trial court, the same should not have been disturbed. D •· > Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 378 of the Code OF Criminal Pro- cedure, 1973, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the powers of the appellate E court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by F • ..i the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. In Chandrappa's case* this Court has called out the gen- eral principles regarding the ambitand scope of the power _ of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of ac- quittal. [Para 8 and 34] [296-E,F,G 310-F] G .. ~ *Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka [2007] 2 SCR 630=2007 (4) SCC 415; Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC 36; Surajpa/ Singh v. State (1952) SCR 193; Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan H ~ 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. " . A (1961) 3 SCR 120; M. G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra ~ 1973 (2) SCC 793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat ,.._ (1996) 9 SCC 225; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 57; Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P (2002) 4 B SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court L of A.P (2002) 6 SCC 470; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 SCC 606; and Ka/Ju v. State of M.P (2006) 10 I.- sec 313 - relied on. L c Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (1955) 2 SCR 1285; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953) SCR 418; and K. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP (1979) 1 SCC 355 - referred to. Sheo Swarup vs. R. Emperor(1934) 61 IA 398; and Nur Mohd. V. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151 - referred to. I D 2.1 A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by ·"'- ·~ the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. ~ Though this standard is a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.