Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2010
Facts of the Case: On 17th February, 1994, one Abdul Kuddus Khan lodged a written First Information Report [for short, `F.I.R.’] before the Chaudhury Bazar Police Out Post stating inter alia that on that date at about 2.00 p.m. while his elder brother Abdul Hakim was returning home from Masjid, six accused persons named in the F.I.R., namely, Subhan, Abdul Mannan, Abdul Hanan, Abdul Sukur, Abdul Kurdish and Abdul Salam attacked and assaulted him. On hearing the screams and loud cries for the help of Abdul Hakim, another elder brother, the informant, namely, Abdul Karim and one of his neighbours, Abdul Kalam, rushed to the spot and intervened, whereupon those two persons were also assaulted and they sustained injuries. The injured persons were taken to the hospital and Abdul Karim succumbed to injuries after fourteen days. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge sheet against all the six accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon framed charges under Section 302/323/34 IPC. The Trial Court examined eight witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court. Against acquittal, the State of Assam preferred an appeal before the High Court. In the impugned judgment, the High Court carefully examined the entire evidence and relevant legal position, as settled by this Court in a number of cases. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has clearly observed that the view taken by the Trial Court was not a possible or a plausible view. The High Court termed the judgment of the Trial Court as perverse and wholly untenable.
Judgment: The Court looked into the entire evidence and the relevant documents of the case. There are five eye witnesses. Ajijur Rahman, P.W.1 had known the accused persons, who lived in the same neighbourhood. He categorically stated that he saw the appellant and the other accused beating the deceased with lathis. Fearing that the accused might beat him, his sister took him away. He also stated that the deceased was taken to Nagaon because the injuries sustained by him were critical in nature. Abdul Kalam, P.W.2 stated that the accused were known to him because they live in his neighbourhood. He also stated that the appellant and the other accused gave lathi blows to the deceased. Abdul Malik was examined as P.W.3. He clearly stated that Abdul Mannan gave lathi blows to Abdul Karim along with the other accused. He asked them not to beat Abdul Karim, but they did not listen to him. The appellant and the other accused ran away after causing injuries. Abdul Hakim P.W.4 also clearly stated that the appellant and other accused gave beating to Hafez Kalam and him as well with lathis. They gave lathis blows to Abdul Karim. Abdul Hakim stated that he also received injuries on his head and below the left eye. Abdul Kuddus Khan, P.W.5 also corroborated the prosecution version and stated that the appellant and others had given beating to his brothers Abdul Hakim and Abdul Kalam. He also stated that his other brother Abdul Karim came on the spot from the western direction and shouted `don’t beat, don’t beat’ but that had no impact on them. The deceased Abdul Karim fell down on the ground because of the injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam, did not carefully marshall the prosecution evidence on record and was swayed away by the fact that the injuries were caused by `sharp edged weapon’ and ultimately, those injuries caused by sharp edged weapon were not found by the doctor in his evidence. The entire prosecution evidence was discarded solely on this ground. According to the High Court, the words `sharp edged’ were added subsequently between the two lines in the report. The Court had checked the original record and it tended to concur with the findings of the High Court. The Court must examine the entire case comprehensively. Even if some inconsistency or discrepancy is discovered, then its impact on the total prosecution version must be carefully examined. In the instant case, how any court can legitimately ignore the testimony of five eye witnesses, including two injured eye witnesses, particularly when their version is wholly consistent and gets full corroboration from the medical evidence? The statements of all eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses are wholly consistent and are fully corroborated with the medical evidence. Dr. Pradip Kumar Talukdar, P.W.7 who was posted at the Gauhati Medical College Hospital in the Forensic Medicine Department, performed the post-mortem examination on Abdul Karim. In the opinion of Dr. Talukdar, the death was a result of head injury sustained by the deceased. According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact, homicidal in nature. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of five eye witnesses including the statements of the injured eye witnesses The Trial Court gravely erred in ignoring the most important and material aspect of the prosecution version. In the Court’s considered view, in the impugned judgment, the High Court carefully marshalled the entire prosecution evidence and also considered the relevant judgments of this Court, both on the aspect of interference by the High Court in cases where there is acquittal by the Trial Court and on the aspect of common intention.
According to the High Court, there was non-reading and mis-reading of the evidence and the law, as it stood, was also not appreciated in proper perspective. According to the High Court, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court can only be termed as perverse because no Court acting reasonably and judiciously can ever take such a view. In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that this was not a case where two views were possible and the court below has taken the one view. According to the High Court, on careful scrutiny of the evidence, no other view point was possible. The High Court was left with no option but to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. In the Court’s view, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the acquittal so far as the appellant herein and Abdul Salam and Abdul Subhan were concerned.
On close scrutiny and examination of the impugned judgment, the Court opined that, in the impugned judgment, the High Court has taken into consideration all relevant factors in dealing with the appeal from the order of acquittal. The impugned order of the High Court was unexceptionable. The High Court in the impugned judgment convicted the appellant as also the accused Abdul Subhan and Abdul Salam under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and awarded imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand each; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month each. The sentence awarded by the High Court was just appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ratio: It is well settled that in a case where the Trial Court has recorded acquittal, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal. On evaluation of the evidence, if the two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not substitute its own view and discard the judgment of the Trial Court.
Decision: The appeal, being devoid of any merit, was accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant, who was on bail, were cancelled and he was required to surrender to the court.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS