NDLI: Jalpat Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 149 and s. 148
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
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
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r/w s. 149 and s. 148 - Fire shots resulting in death of three persons - Conviction of A-2 u/s. 302 and s. 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and acquittal of the other accused (appellants) by trial court on the ground that the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses was not reliable and was contradictory to the report of the ballistic expert - High Court held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was cogent, convincing and truthful and convicted appellants u/s. 148 and s. 302 r/w s. 149 - On appeal, held: Prosecution witnesses were closely related to the three deceased - Their evidence showed their long standing rivalry with accused party - Thus, prosecution witnesses were not only much interested in the prosecution case but they were inimically disposed towards the accused party as well - No other independent witness was examined although the incident occurred in a busy market area - At the place of occurrence, one wrist watch, one betcha and four pair of chappals were also found - There was no explanation at all by the prosecution with regard to these F articles - These circumstances instead of lending any corroboration to the evidence of the three key witnesses, rather suggested that they had not come out with the true and complete disclosure of the incident - The evidence of prosecution witnesses was to the effect that there was indiscriminate firing by the accused party at the complainant party - However, at the place of occurrence, only three empties were found - Moreover, at the scene of occurrence, there were no marks of indiscriminate firing - The ballistic report recorded that the crime bullets and the cartridge cases were fired by the pistol recovered from A-2 only - The testimony of prosecution witnesses about the role of appellants, thus, was not corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence - The deposition of prosecution witnesses suffered from significant improvements and omissions as well - Serious infirmities in the evidence of the eye-witnesses indicated that their evidence was not wholly true and it was unsafe to act on their evidence insofar as complicity of appellants was concerned - Appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt - The order of acquittal passed by trial court in favour of appellants is restored.Appeal: Special leave petition - Held: Mere dismissal of SLP does not amount to acceptance of correctness of High Court decision - A-2 was convicted by trial court for the offence u/s.302 IPC but High Court altered his conviction from s.302 to s.302 IPC r.w. s.149 /PC and his SLP against that judgement was dismissed summarily - Dismissal of SLP summarily did not mean affirmance of the judgement of the High Court on merits - The order of Supreme Court in A-2 SLP is not an impediment in allowing the appeals of appellants once it is held that prosecution had failed to prove the complicity of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt - It is incorrect to state that since A-2 had a right of appeal u/ s.2 of the 1970 Act, therefore, the order of Supreme Court dismissing the SLP preferred by him was non-est - The case against A-2 stood on a different footing - The ballistic evidence was conclusive against him and there was no doubt about his involvement in the crime - Judgement of the High Court as regards the appellants set aside and judgement of acquittal passed in their favour by the trial court is restored - Supreme Court (enlargement of criminal appellatejurisdiction) Act, 1970 - s.2.Witnesses: Interested witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: The evidence of eye-witnesses, irrespective of their interestedness, kinship, standing or enmity with the accused, if found credible and of such a caliber as to be regarded as wholly reliable can be sufficient and enough to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 464
Petitioner	Jalpat Rai & Ors.
Respondent	State Of Haryana
SCR	[2011] 7 S.C.R. 1037
Judgement Date	2011-07-06
Case Number	1736

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

Jalpat Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Suresh @ Hakla Vs. State of Haryana

Balwan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Ponnam Chandraiah Vs. State of A.p.

Basudeo Yadav Vs. Surendra Yadav & Ors.

Ramvilas Vs. State of M.p.

State of M.p Vs. Makhan @ Madan & Ors.

Aqeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.p.

Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.

Jalpat Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Jalpat Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Suresh @ Hakla Vs. State of Haryana

Balwan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Ponnam Chandraiah Vs. State of A.p.

Basudeo Yadav Vs. Surendra Yadav & Ors.

Ramvilas Vs. State of M.p.

State of M.p Vs. Makhan @ Madan & Ors.

Aqeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.p.

Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana

Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.

Jalpat Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana