IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.70 OF 2002
State, represented by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu …Appellant
Sait @ Krishnakumar …Respondent JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
1. Heard schooled warn for a parties.
2. Challenge in this interest is to a visualisation of a Division Bench of a Madras High Court directing exculpation of a respondent. The Trial Court, i.e. a Court of Sessions, Coimbatore had found a respondent guilty of corruption punishable underneath Section 302 of a Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in brief `the IPC‘). It is to be remarkable that 4 persons, including a respondent were attempted for offences punishable underneath Section 302 review with Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 392 review with Section 397 IPC. The benefaction respondent, i.e. A-1 was attempted for offences punishable underneath Section 392 review with Section 397 IPC and A-2 to A-4 were attempted for offences punishable underneath Section 392 IPC. The schooled Sessions Judge found a respondent guilty of offences punishable underneath Section 302 as good as for offences punishable underneath Section 392 review with Section 397 IPC and condemned him to bear seizure for life and 7 years severe seizure for a latter offence. The High Court found a justification to be not reasoning and convincing and destined acquittal.
3. Prosecution chronicle essentially complacent on a justification of PWs 1 to 3 and PW-8. The hearing justice placed faith on a justification of such witnesses and destined conviction, as available above.
4. The High Court found that it was an supposed position, as conceded by PWs 1 and 2 that they had seen a photographs and review a names of a indicted in a journal before to a exam marker parade. On that ground, a High Court disbelieved a justification of PWs 1 and 2. So distant as PW-3 is concerned, a High Court found that his chronicle to have usually review a name of a indicted in a journal and not to have seen a photographs, was not believable. Accordingly, PWs 1 to 3 were disbelieved. The residual doubt was a trustworthiness of a justification tendered by PW-8. Here again, a High Court found that his chronicle lacked credence. He claimed to be a chairman who had seen a indicted after some time of a occurrence with a blood stained knife. But his control was found to be unnatural. If he was a usually chairman to have seen a indicted from tighten quarters, it was not explained because he did not contend so during investigation. Such a chronicle for a initial time in Court has been righteously rejected by a High Court. Therefore, a High Court destined acquittal, as remarkable above.
5. Learned warn for a appellant-State submitted that even if there was some range for jealous a justification of PWs 1 and 2, so distant as PW-3 and PW-8 are concerned, a opposite yardstick had to be applied.
6. Learned warn for a respondent-accused upheld a visualisation of a High Court.
7. We find that so distant as PWs 1 to 3 are concerned, a High Court found that they had arise to see a photographs and review a name of a indicted from a journal before to a exam marker parade. So distant as PW-8 is concerned, a High Court found that his justification was during opposite with that of PWs 1 and 2 and had also lacked reliability.
8. The perspective taken by a High Court after analysing a justification can't be pronounced to be a perspective that is not probable to be taken.
9. That being so, we are not prone to meddle in this interest that is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi, Oct 01, 2008.