NDLI: Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Vs. State of U.p.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
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 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w s.149, s.307 r/w s.149 and s.148 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 25 and 30 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.293 – Murder of five persons – Seven accused – The deceased belonged to or were associated with the same family; two of them were brothers, the third was their minor son and the other two were their close family friends – Trial Court acquitted all the accused – Appeal against acquittal – High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and convicted all the accused under ss. 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 of the IPC, and sentenced them to life imprisonment – Propriety of – Held: High Court was justified in exercising its appellate jurisdiction in reversing the order of acquittal as there were certain glaring mistakes, and distorted conclusions in the decision of the Trial Court – High Court was duty-bound to reverse the decision as there existed very substantial and compelling reasons to do so, failing which it would have caused a grave miscarriage of justice – Prosecution proved the presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence and of him being an injured eye-witness to the incident – Facts narrated in the FIR were fully corroborated by much of the documentary evidence and were fully in consonance with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses – The High Court was correct in rejecting the submission that the prosecution failed to prove a common object and unlawful assembly – The arrests of A6, A10, A7 and A8 were concurrently and consistently spoken by all the witnesses, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12 – Conclusion drawn by trial court that the arrest and recovery were doubtful were glaring mistakes – Rejection of the FSL (ballistic) report was another grave mistake of the Trial Court – Conclusion of Trial Court that the ballistic report was inadmissible as it is not in consonance with the requirement of s. 293 Cr.P.C. was entirely wrong – The ballistic report was in complete compliance of the statutory provision – High Court had to necessarily step in to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.Appeal – Appeal against acquittal by trial court – Jurisdiction of the High Court – Discussed.Criminal Law – Motive – Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive does not have a direct bearing on the actual evidence against the accused, particularly when the prosecution relies on direct evidence of injured eyewitnesses. Criminal Law – Investigation – Defective investigation by investigating authorities by itself does vitiate the case of the prosecution when there are credible eye-witness testimonies as well as other compelling pieces of evidence. Evidence – Witness – Testimony of injured eye-witness – Appreciation – Held: When there are credible ocular witnesses whose statements are corroborated by other contemporaneous evidence, certain minor variations, such as non-recovery of blood-stained clothes, certain other weapons etc. will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 293 – Statutory requirement under – Compliance – FSL (ballistic) report – On facts, the report came from the office of the Assistant Director of a Forensic Lab bearing his seal – Conclusion of the Trial Court that the ballistic report was inadmissible as it was not in consonance with the requirement of Section 293 Cr.P.C., is entirely wrong – Ballistic report was in complete compliance of the statutory provision – Trial Court erred in rejecting the ballistic report.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1164
Petitioner	Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel
Respondent	State Of U.p.
SCR	[2022] 12 S.C.R. 1035
Judgement Date	2022-11-04
Case Number	946

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

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Vs. State of U.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.p.

State of U.p. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Another

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Kirpal Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Om Pal Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Prajeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State Thr. Cbi

Ashok Kumar Mondal Vs. Samir Kumar Mondal & Anr.

Indra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Vs. State of U.p.

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Vs. State of U.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.p.

State of U.p. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Another

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Kirpal Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Om Pal Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Prajeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State Thr. Cbi

Ashok Kumar Mondal Vs. Samir Kumar Mondal & Anr.

Indra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.p.

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Vs. State of U.p.