NDLI: Shri Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case was that the informant was the daughter of the victim-deceased – As per her statement, the deceased had left in the morning on the fateful day to meet one ‘K’ and thereafter he had to join duty – When he did not return home till 6 pm she called him but his phone was switched off – Next morning, she called the Forest Guard who told her that the deceased had not come to duty – Thereafter she called accused-S whose house was near her house and sought number of ‘K’ – Police came to her house and she found that her father had died due to gun shot by accused-S and accused-R and the body was lying in the forest – The dead body and murder weapon were allegedly recovered on the disclosure statements made by the two accused stated to have been made in presence of PW-2 and PW-3 – Trial court acquitted all the accused for the reason that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – On State’s appeal against acquittal, High Court reversed the order of acquittal holding that the finding of trial court that dead body was recovered prior to the disclosure statement made by the accused-S and accused-R was not correct and that the dead body was recovered only on the basis of the disclosure statements – Appeal against conviction – Held: The statements of the prosecution witnesses did not appear to be trustworthy – The entire prosecution case was based on the telephone call made by accused-S but no call details were produced to verify their correctness – The other incriminating circumstance weighed with the High Court was the recovery of the single barrel gun with the cartridge from the house of accused-L, the licence holder – The report of the forensic science laboratory only showed that such gun was used in the commission of crime, but prosecution failed to establish which of the accused actually used the gun – The disclosure statement of accused-S was that he fired from the gun – But the recovery of the gun was on the basis of disclosure statement of accused-R – There was no direct evidence as to the use of licensed gun of accused-L, though the gun along with empty and live cartridges were recovered on the statement of accused-R – In the absence of evidence as to which of the two accused fired upon the deceased, the accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of recovery of gun used in the commission of crime – Prosecution also failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused – Thus, in the absence of any evidence led by the prosecution as to who fired the fatal shot, the benefit of doubt to the accused persons was rightly granted by the trial court – High Court interfered with the findings of acquittal even though the conclusion drawn by the trial court was a possible conclusion on the basis of evidence on record – As regards conviction under ss.25 and 27 of Arms Act, none of the conditions mentioned in those sections were attracted – Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under s.302 r/w s.34 and ss.25 and 27 of the Arms Act is set aside – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25 and 27.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 – Jurisdiction of Appellate Court to interfere with order of trial court – Scope of – Held: While exercising the jurisdiction under s.389 of the Code, especially when trial court has recorded a finding of not proving the guilt, the Appellate Court should interfere only if the findings are perverse and are not possible by any reasonable person – High Court in an appeal against acquittal does not interfere only if the Appellate Court has a different view on process of evidence than what was taken by the trial court – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Motive, absence of – Effect on prosecution case – Held: In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant – In the instant case, prosecution failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused – As per the statement of PW-1, the motive was land dispute with accused-S – If such was a motive, then there was no reason for her to contact accused-S who was said to be staying near her house, to find out whereabouts of her father (victim-deceased) – The said motive had no foundation to stand – Criminal law – Motive – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 251
Petitioner	Shri Satish Kumar & Anr.
Respondent	The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
SCR	[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1144
Judgement Date	2020-03-02
Case Number	19

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

Shri Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Karanvir

Munuwa @ Satish Etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh

The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Manga Singh

Kishore Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar

Shri Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Shri Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Karanvir

Munuwa @ Satish Etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh

The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Manga Singh

Kishore Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar

Shri Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.