- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 1 October 2008
- Bench
- Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma
- Case no.
- Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002
- Result
- Appeals dismissed.
Headnote
,....._
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal against acquittal by High Court - Scope of interference - High Court acquitted the accused on grounds that the evidence of sole eyewitness was unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch of FIR to Magistrate - Held: View taken by High Court was a possible view - Hence, interference not called for.
The High Court directed acquittal of the accused on grounds that the ·evidence of the sole eyewitness was unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch f·· of FIR to the Magistrate. Hence the instant appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and therefore considering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. [Para 1] [125-C,D]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Having heard learned coun-sel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a case where any interference is called for. The High Court has found that the evidence of PW5, who was stated to be the sole eye-witness, unreliable. Apart from that there is considerable delay in dispatch of the first information report to the court. Though in all cases that may not be the determinative factor, but when considered with other aspects that assumes importance. The High Court has dealt with this aspect in detail. The view taken by the High Court is 9 possible view and therefore con-sidering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for interference.
¶2The appeal is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 110512002:
¶3In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/ 2002, this appeal is also dismissed.
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002 >i~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1996
WITH
Crl. No. 1105 of 2002 Shanshindra Tripathi, Sharad Tripathi, M.P. Shorawala, Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave and Niraj Sharma for the Appearing Parties.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.