NDLI: Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s.378: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.378: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of – Appellate Court has to consider whether trial court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed – An order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – Double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters – Thus, appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of trial court rendering acquittal. Criminal Law: FIR: Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate – FIR starts the process of investigation by setting criminal law into motion – Investigation officer has to keep the magistrate in the loop of his ongoing investigation – Such an information is expected to reach the jurisdictional magistrate at the earliest point of time – Delay introduces coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation – However, a mere delay by itself cannot be a sole factor in rejecting the prosecution’s case. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.161–Investigating Officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offense – An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution’s case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case – However, non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. Evidence Act: s.27: Fact discovered – Onus – Admissibility under s.27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered – It facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offense – The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the information obtained from the accused – One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means – The Court will have to be conscious of the witness’s credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery under s.27 of the Evidence Act. Criminal Law – In the instant case, accused, 16 in numbers, assembled, hatched a conspiracy and thereafter attacked deceased to take out his life – Trial Court convicted A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 under IPC and acquitted A-10 to A-16 by considering the evidences on record – High Court confirmed the order of acquittal against A-14 to A-16 and confirmed the conviction against the other accused, namely, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9, but it overturned the order of acquittal of A-10, A-11, A-12, and A-13 granted by trial court on the premise that the witnesses who spoke about these accused’s presence failed to consider the import of s.149 IPC – On appeal, held: Trial court has taken a possible view that the evidence rendered by the eyewitnesses does not satisfy the Court qua the presence of A-10 to A-13 – As trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses as they deposed, the appellate forum cannot change the conclusion arrived at thereafter by substituting its views – High Court has adopted the principle of preponderance of probability as could be applicable to the civil cases to the case on hand when more scrutiny is warranted for reversing an order of acquittal – For the recovery made from A-12 also, there was no confirmation from prosecution witnesses – The blood-stained dress was stated to have been recovered from A-13 from the hospital – It is not known as to how the said dress reached the hospital, and there was no evidence forthcoming on that count, apart from correlating the said dress to that of the accused – There seemed to be a structured pattern in the recovery of A-10 to A-13 – Conviction rendered by High Court against A-10 to A-13 stands set aside – Acquittal by trial court restored.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 464
Petitioner	Jafarudheen & Ors.
Respondent	State Of Kerala
SCR	[2022] 5 S.C.R. 721
Judgement Date	2022-04-22
Case Number	430-431

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Jairnail Singh

K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala

State of Rajasthan Vs. Rohitas & Ors.

Brijesh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala

Valson and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Indu Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Baikunth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Jairnail Singh

K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala

State of Rajasthan Vs. Rohitas & Ors.

Brijesh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala

Valson and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Indu Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Baikunth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala