Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 903 - SC - Indian LawsReversal of acquittal passed by High Court - Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the ld trial Court? - Conviction of accused persons u/s 147, 307/149, u/s 323/149 I.P.C. and imprisonment for life u/s 302 r/w Sec. 149 of I.P.C. by the trial court - incident taken place between the accused and members of the complainant party over share in plot No. 165/2 measuring 1.88 decimals - Chhakkoo and his brother Panchu were original tenure holders of the said plot along with some other plots - members of the complainant party tried to forcibly dispossess them. HELD THAT:- The High Court came to the conclusion that PW.3 Sahadeo and PW.4 Narayan cannot be said to be totally independent witnesses as the defence had filed documentary evidence to show that Lalloo, the father of the accused persons had lodged an FIR against these witnesses for an offence u/s 308 IPC. These witnesses were, therefore, also somewhat inimical to the accused persons and their evidence cannot be given due weight especially with regard to the use of Lathi and Danda by the prosecution witnesses, particularly when such an important fact had not been stated by them in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements being contradictory to each other with regard to the use of Danda by the prosecution witness. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that the injuries of the accused persons have not been satisfactorily explained. This Court, in a recent judgment in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008 (7) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT] considered earlier cases and laid down that the appellate court should, therefore, reverse an acquittal only when it has "very substantial and compelling reasons". Following are some of the circumstances in which perhaps this Court would be justified in interfering with the judgment of the High Court, but these are illustrative not exhaustive. i) The High court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record. iii) The entire approach of the High court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice; iv) The High court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court. vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. When we apply these parameters laid down by a number of cases decided by this Court to the facts of this case, then conclusions become irresistible and no interference is warranted by this Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of UP being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed.
|