Deciding Authority– Supreme Court of India
Name of Judges– S B Sinha and RV Raveendran
Date of Judgement-04/01/2006
Facts of the Case– This is an appeal by the four convicted accused against the judgment dated 13.12.2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowing in part, Criminal Appeal No.874 of 1995 filed by the State. On 5.7.1993, at about 6 p.m., an unlawful assembly of 27 persons, including Kallu, Safi, Madaniya and Bhuria (appellant nos.1 to 4 herein) and one Anwar armed with swords, Ballams, lathis, hockey sticks, ETC., came to the house of Sadruddin (PW-4),, shouting “kill/cut Sadruddin”. Kallu and Madaniya dealt a blow on the head and hand of Sadruddin with a sword. Shafi and Bhuria gave a blow of sword injuring his forehead, nose and jaw, spear injuring his thigh and calf. W-10) When Sabdar Bano (PW-6), Noorbano (PW-7), Baby (PW-9) and Annobai (PW-10) rushed to the rescue of Sadruddin they were also beaten up by the appellants and their associates and received injuries head and hands. Kanizbano (PW-3) witnessed the entire incident and took the injured persons to the hospital and also lodged an FIR (Ex. P-28) within half an hour of the incident naming all the 27 persons. They were tried, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 and one Nazir Khan were also charged under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. 3.By judgment dated 16.8.1995 trial cort acquitted all 27 accused on three grounds. The first is that all the eyewitnesses belonged to Sadruddin group who had enmity with the accused. The second was that no witness was examined individually and third there were inconsistencies in the statements of the eye- witnesses. Appeal was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.874 of 1995. Leave to appeal was granted by the High Court under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. in regard to five accused (the four appellants and one Anwar) who were specifically named in the evidence as persons who attacked and injured PWs. 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Thus, 22 other who were not named by any of the witnesses and to no specific overt act was attributed to them, attained finality. The High Court the appeal in part, convicted appellant Nos.1 to 4 and sentenced each of them as follows by its judgement dated 13.12.2014:
(i)RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000 and 6 months RI under Sec 326 and 326/149 (appellant no.1 and 4) for causing skull injury to PW-4. (ii) 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/-, in default 3 months RI under Section 324/149 IPC for causing injuries to PW-6 and PW-9; (iii) Six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default 3 months RI to each, under Section 323/149 IPC, for causing injuries to PWs.7 and 10. Anwar was dismissed by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Respondent Nos.1, 11, 19 and 23) being aggrieved have filed this appeal by special leave by contending that the High Court failed to notice that (a) appellants had been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity between the two groups; (b) there are several inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses; and (c) though several members of public were allegedly present at the time of the incident, no independent witness was examined. It is submitted that in the absence of any perversity or omission to consider material evidence or apparent error in law, the judgment of the Trial Court and conviction invoking section 149 IPC is not warranted. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is not less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. Kanizbano, PW-3, stated that Kallu, Safi, Madaniya, (appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3) had beaten Sadruddin. The evidence of PWs. 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 when read with the evidence of PW-3 makes it clear that appellants 1 to 4 along with others, had come armed with swords etc. In these circumstances, the High Court held the appellants guilty.
Judgement– The Court took notice of the following cases: Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964 (8) SCR 133], Mohan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 174] and Ram Bilas Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar [1964 (1) SCR 775], and in Dharam Pal and Others vs. The State of U.P. [1975 (2) SCC 596], Triloki Nath vs. State of UP reported in JT 2005 (9) SC 370 and were of the view that We find that the High Court has not interfered in the matter in a routine manner merely because a different view is possible. The High Court has interfered rightly, in our view, because the trial court unreasonably disbelieved the evidence of six eye-witnesses on insufficient grounds. The reasons were given by High Court for interfering with acquittal. Therefore, no error was found in the decision of the High Court. After reading Section 149 of IPC carefully Court found that the contention that when only four persons are found guilty, there cannot be conviction under section 149 IPC, has no merit.
Held-No merit was found in the appeal and the same was dismissed.
ASHNA HANDA, 5TH YEAR BA.LLB.,(H), AMITY LAW SCHOOL-II, NOIDA
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS