That it is necessary for the High Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to its conclusion to affirm or reverse the order.


[Case Brief] State of Uttarakhand V/S Jairnail Singh


Case name:
State of Uttarakhand V/S Jairnail Singh
Case number: S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1651 of 2015
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Decided on: 20 August, 1965
Relevant Act/Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Arms Act, 1959,


BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:


1. The prosecution case is that on 12.12.1999 at 17.45 hrs., the First Information Report (FIR)  was lodged by Asgar Ali, son of Allah Diya, resident of Mohalla Naudhauna, Kasba and  Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnore in Police Station Nanakmatta, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.
2. As per the contents of the FIR lodged by Asgar Ali-the Complainant, on 08.12.1999, he along with his brother Akbar Ali and 10-12 other persons were doing the trading of sale purchase of paddy of Village Devipura. On 12.12.1999, at around 11.00 hrs., when Akbar Ali (injured victim) was weighing paddy of Jairnail Singh(accused) in his village at Devipura, at that time, Jairnail Singh came and made an allegation on Akbar Ali that more paddy has been weighed while it had been shown less. Akbar Ali denied the allegation.
3. Therefore, Jairnail Singh started abusing Akbar Ali and when Akbar Ali objected, the quarrel erupted and Jairnail Singh took out a 12 bore country made pistol from his right pocket of his pant and fired on the temple of Akbar Ali, due to which Akbar Ali fell down at the spot. Asgar Ali(complainant) and other companions of Akbar Ali tried to grab Jairnail Singh but he succeeded to escape from the spot with the pistol in south direction.
4. They went to Government Hospital, Khatima where doctor referred the injured to the Government Hospital, Pilibhit where the injured was examined. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer on 13.12.1999 at about 12.30 p.m. arrested Jairnail Singh from Nanak Sagar Dam and recovered the pistol, which was without license.
5. The Trial Court conducted the trial in both the cases together. By judgment dated 01.03.2005, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the respondent(accused) filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2005 before the High Court. The High Court, by impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence of the respondent-accused passed by the Trial Court in Session Trial Nos.319 and 320 of 2000.
7. Felt aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.


ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT:
1. Whether the high court correctly reversed the sessions court order?


RATIO OF THE COURT
1. The court observed that the reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-A) appears to be just and proper as set out below and to which we concur and hence it does not call for any interference by this Court.
2. These are some infirmities which the court held to be rightly observed by the high court

a) First, the parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye-witnesses and the accused were known to each other then why the Complainant-brother of victim in his application (Ex-P-A) made immediately after the incident to the Chief Medical Superintendent, Pilibhit did not mention the name of the accused and instead mentioned therein "some sardars".
b) Second, why would the accused keep the pistol all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and roam all over.
c) Third, the weapon (pistol) and various other evidences alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was not sent for forensic examination.
d) Fourth, weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the concerned Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating Officer.
3. The court finally held that it is necessary for the High Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to its conclusion to affirm or reverse the order. In a case of later, which results in reversal, with which we are here concerned, it is necessary for the High Court to assign cogent reasons as to why it does not consider it proper to agree with the reasoning of the Sessions Judge by pointing out material contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case.


DECISION HELD BY COURT:
1. The court found no merit in the appeal.
2. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed

Contact Us: briefcsed.org@gmail.com

©2020 by briefCASED.