TORAN SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 01-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TORAN SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
AUGUST l, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Trial Court brushing aside 
the infirmities and improbabilities in the prosecution case-Convicting the 
accused-Confirmed by High Court-On appeal held, High Court ought to 
C have scrutinized and examined its evidence as first court of appeal-Order of 
Trial Court and High Court set aside-Accused acquitted giving benefit of 
doubt-Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Concurrent finding by courts 
D below-Normally not interfered with-Where no proper and objective 
appreciation of evidence by trial court-High Court as first court of appeal 
also fails in its duty of re-appreciating and reviewing evidence objective/y-
in such cases it is duty of this Court to interfere to prevent miscarriage of 
justice. 
E 
According to the prosecution, appellant called one 'H' and his son 
to his village for properly setting roof tiles of his house. 'H' stayed in the 
appellant's house while his son PWl went out for some time. At night when 
PWl came to appellant's house to sleep he saw appellant assaulting 'H' 
by axe. J:he motive stated by the appellant was that 'H' had eloped with 
appellant's wife. PWl tried to save 'H' but could not. He then ran away 
F to his village to save himself and informed his brothers about the 
occurrence. PWl and his brothers then went towards appellant's village. 
On their way they met PW2, Chowkidar of village who told them that he 
was informed by PW9 that appellant had murdered 'H'. He then asked 
PW 1 and his brothers to go back and lodge FIR Accordingly PWl lodged 
G FIR. After trial, Sessions Judge convicted appellant for offence under 
Section 302 of IPC. High Court confirmed the order. Hence the present 
H 
appeal. 
, . 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Ordinarily this Court does not disturb or upset the 
390 
TORAN SINGH v. STATEOFM.P. 
391 
concurrent findings recorded by trial court as affirmed by High Court, A 
entering into the domain of appreciation of evidence. But in a case like 
this where there was no proper and objective appreciation of evidence by 
trial court and High Court, as a first court of appeal, fails in its duty of 
re-appreciating the evidence and reviewing the evidence objectively and 
simply endorses the conclusion arrived at by trial court resulting in patent B 
miscarriage of justice, not only this Court interferes but it becomes the 
duty of this Court to do so to prevent miscarriage of justice. [394-A-B] 
2.1. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record to speak about 
the deceased and his son reaching the house of the appellant or their stay 
in his house, more so the motive for the alleged offence being ill-will and C 
enmity, it was improbable that appellant would have gone from his village 
to the village of deceased and his son to call them for properly setting the 
roof of his house and deceased and his son could have gone to appellant's 
house to stay overnight. The evidence of PW!, the only eye-witness 
according to the prosecution, ought to have been scrutinized with greater 
caution, but his evidence is not corroborated on material aspects of the D 
evidence and other witnesses. Both PW3 and PW9 were treated as hostile 
by the prosecution. The axe alleged to have been used in the commission 
of offence, recovered at the instance of appellant, was not produced before 
the Court and there was no occasion for the doctor to confirm whether 
injuries of the nature found on the deceased could be caused by such an E 
axe and the conduct of PW-I at the place and time of occurrence is 
doubtful and incredible. Thus, apart from material contradictions and 
omissions in the statements of witnesses, there are serious infirmities and 
improbabilities of the prosecution case giving rise to doubts as to the 
involvement of appellant in the commission of the offence. 
(394-C-F; 395-B, E] F 
2.2. There is no evaluation, analysis or scrutiny of evidence in a 
proper perspective objectively by trial court. With regard to serious 
infirmities pointed out by the defence raising doubt about the prosecution 
case, Sessions Judge simply stated that he did not agree with such 
contentions. Thus, trial court was not right and justified in lightly brushing G 
aside the infirmities and improbabilities brought out from the prosecution 
case, that tot. when the entire prosecution

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