Mubarik Khan Vs. Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2002
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1996]
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2002
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1996]
Petitioner: Mubarik Khan
Respondent: Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2002
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1996]
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2002
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1996]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 01, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Shanshindra Tripathi, Ms. Sharad Tripathi, Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Mr. Siddhartha Dave and Mr. Niraj Sharma, Advocates for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
Criminal Laws
Sole – Eye witness – High Court finding the evidence of PW5 unreliable – Delay in dispatch of FIR. Held though delay in dispatching FIR is not determinative factor but in view of the other aspects it assumes importance. View taken by High Court being a possible one, no interference called for.
Sole – Eye witness – High Court finding the evidence of PW5 unreliable – Delay in dispatch of FIR. Held though delay in dispatching FIR is not determinative factor but in view of the other aspects it assumes importance. View taken by High Court being a possible one, no interference called for.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a 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 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 a possible view and therefore considering the parameters relating to cases where judgment or acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for interference.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 1105/2002:
3. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/2002, this appeal is also dismissed.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a 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 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 a possible view and therefore considering the parameters relating to cases where judgment or acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for interference.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 1105/2002:
3. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/2002, this appeal is also dismissed.
