Mubarik Khan v. Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-10-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mubarik Khan

Respondents

Nababkha @ Nawab and Ors.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging an order of acquittal by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. The respondent-accused were acquitted on grounds that the sole eyewitness’s testimony was unreliable and there was a considerable delay in sending the First Information Report to the Magistrate. The appellant, Mubarik Khan, sought reversal of the acquittal, urging that the High Court should not have accepted the unreliability of the sole eyewitness and discount the surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court framed the issue within the narrow compass of appellate interference in acquittals and examined whether the High Court’s view was a possible one under the evidence and the statutory parameters governing interference in acquittals. The Court noted that while delay in FIR and issues concerning eyewitness credibility are important, they must be considered as part of the broader evidentiary and factual picture. The Bench held that the High Court’s conclusion was a possible view and that, in light of the established standard for disturbing acquittals, this is not a fit case for interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the connected appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2002) was also dismissed, thereby affirming the High Court’s acquittal and further clarifying the narrow scope for appellate intervention in acquittals.

Provisions of Law Cited

Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 124 ~-- _)_ \ f·· A ## MUBARIK KHAN _v._ NABABKHA @ NAWAB AND ORS. t(Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002) B OCTOBER 1,, 2008 ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ,....._ _Constitution of India, 1950_ - _Art. 136_ - _Appeal against[Scope ][of ][interference ]_[-] _[High Court ]_ c _[acquittal ][by ][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._ D E > 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. Dismissing the appeals, the Court 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] F CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2002 ,. >i~ From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal G[Appeal ][No. ][495 ][of ][1996 ] ## WITH ~ Crl. No. 1105 of 2002 Shanshindra Tripathi, Sharad Tripathi, M.P. Shorawala, 124 H # MUBARIK KHAN _v._ NABABKHA@ NAWAB 125 AND ORS. Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave and Niraj Sharma for the Appearing Parties. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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. 2. The appeal is dismissed. _Criminal Appeal No. 110512002:_ 3. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 612/ E 2002, this appeal is also dismissed. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.