Dismissed¶37

Mubarik Khan v. Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal by High Court – Scope of interference

Supreme Court1 Oct 20082008 INSC 1114 · [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1242008 INSC 1114

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mubarik Khan v. Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors., Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002 (with Crl. No. 1105 of 2002), decided 1 October 2008 (Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.; Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.). Appeal against acquittal under Article 136 dismissed: the High Court's view — sole eyewitness PW5 unreliable and considerable delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate — was a possible view, so no interference was warranted. Keywords: acquittal, possible view, sole eyewitness, delay in FIR, Article 136, scope of interference.

What did the court decide?

None; both appeals dismissed and the High Court's acquittal stands undisturbed. ¶37

Mubarik Khan versus Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors. — Supreme Court (2008) — LawSathi Research

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 124

~-- )

,....._

\ f··

MUBARIK KHAN

NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS. t(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002)

¶9

¶10

OCTOBER 1,, 2008

¶11

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

¶12

Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal against c^{acquittal by High Court-}^{Scopeof interference-}^{High Court} acquitted the accused on grounds that the evidence of sole eyewitness was unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch of FIR to Magistrate - Held: View taken by High Court was a possible view - Hence, interference not called for.

¶13

D The High Court directed acquittal of the accused on grounds that the ·evidence of the sole eyewitness was unreliable and there was considerable delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate. Hence the instant appeals.

¶14

¶15

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

¶16

HELD: The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and therefore considering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. [Para 1] [125-C,D]

¶17

¶18

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002

¶19

¶20

i~

¶21

From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal G^{AppealNo.495 of 1996}

¶22

WITH

¶23

¶24

Crl. No. 1105 of 2002

¶25

¶26

Shanshindra Tripathi, Sharad Tripathi, M.P. Shorawala, 124

¶27

MUBARIK KHAN v. NABABKHA@ NAWAB 125 AND ORS.

¶28

Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave and Niraj Sharma for the Appearing Parties.

¶29

¶30

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶31

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length we are not satisfied that this is a B 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 c 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 9 possible view and therefore considering the parametres relating to cases where judgment of acquittal is assailed, we do not consider this to be fit case for 0 interference.

¶32