MUBARIK KHAN ~-- v. NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2008-14-124-125
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Catchwords
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal against c 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. D 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 E 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] F CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ,. >i~ No. 612 of 2002 From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal G Appeal No. 495 of 1996 WITH ~
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
p. 124
MUBARIK KHAN ~-- A ) v. NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS. t(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002) OCTOBER 1,, 2008 B ,....._
Crl. No. 1105 of 2002 Shanshindra Tripathi, Sharad Tripathi, M.P. Shorawala, H 124
MUBARIK KHAN v. NABABKHA@ NAWAB 125 AND ORS.
Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave and Niraj Sharma for A the Appearing Parties.
Judgment
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Having heard learned coun- sel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a B 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 c 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 0 interference.
22. The appeal is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 110512002:
33. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/ E 2002, this appeal is also dismissed. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0