STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus JAIRNAIL SINGH
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 122, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 122 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
v. 
JAIRNAIL SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1918 of 2017) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 - Appeal against 
order of acquiual - lme1ference with - When - Held: Judgment 
C can be i111e1jered only when illegality is noticed in the impugned 
judgment, it is based on no evidence or/and it contains no reasoning 
or when the reasoning given are wholly perverse - When the High 
Court while reversing the conviction by the Session Court. assigns 
the reasons by appreciating the entire evidence in support of the 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
acquiffal, then this Court would not be inclined to inte1fere in the 
order of acquilfal - On fixts. the High Court reversed the conviction 
order by assigning cogent reasons, pointing out material 
contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case -
lnjlrmities were rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court 
after appreciating the evidence - It cannot be said that the infirmities 
were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in 
nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses -
Reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the 
respondent of the charges u/.d07 !PC and s.25(/-A)just and prope1; 
and is concurred with - Penal Code, 1860 - s.307 - Arms Act, 
1959 - s.25(/A). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The reasoning and the conclusion of the High 
Court in
acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 
307 !PC and Section 25(1-A) appears to be just and prnper and is 
concurred with and thus, does not call for any interference. [Para 
17][127-G-H] 
1.2 The parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his 
brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye-
witnesses and the accused were known to each other then why 
the complainant-brother of victim in his application made 
122
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAIRNAIL SINGH 
immediately after the incident to the Chief Medical 
Superintendent did not mention the name of the accused and 
instead mentioned therein "some sardars". Further, according 
to the prosecution, the weapon used in commission of offence 
was recovered from the pocket of the accused the next day, it 
looked improbable as to why would the ace.used keep the pistol 
all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and 
roam all over. The weapon (pistol) alleged to have been used in 
the commission of the offence was not sent for forensic 
examination with a view to find out as to whether it was capable 
123 
A 
B 
of IJeing used to open fire and, if so, whether the IJullet/palate 
used could be fired from such gun. Similarly, other seized articles 
C 
such us blood-stained shirt and soil were also not sent for forensic 
examination. Weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the 
concerned Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating 
Officer. If, according to the prosecution case, the shot was hit 
from a very short d.istance as the accused and the victim were D 
standing very near to each other, then as per the medical evidence 
of the Doctor (PW-6) a particular type of mark where the bullet 
was hit should have been there but no such mark was noticed on 
the body. No explanation was given for this. This also raised some 
doubt in the prosecution case. [Paras 18-22][128-A-EJ 
1.3 The said infirmities were rightly noticed
and relied on 
by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session 
Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was 
entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. There is no good ground 
E 
F 
to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the 
High Court. It cannot be said that the infirmities were either 
irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as 
compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses. The 
prosecution should have taken care of some of the infirmities 
noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have 
been taken before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. 
It was, however, not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, G 
accordingly, rightly given to the respondent by the High Court. 
[Paras 23, 24][128-G-H; 129-AJ 
1.4 Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in 
this appeal, unless any kind of illegality is noticed in the impugned 
H
' 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] l I S.C.R. 
A judgment, such judgment cannot be interfered. In other words, It 
is only when it is found that the Impugned judgment is based on 
no evidence or/and it contains no reasoning or when it is noticed 
that the reasoning given are wholly perverse, this Court may 
consider it proper in appropriate case to interfere and reverse 
B 
the decision of the High Court. But when the High Court while 
reversing the decision of the Session Court acquits the accused 
and assigns t'1e reasons by appreciating the entire evidence in 
support of the acquittal, then this Court would not be inclined to 
interfere in the order of acquittal. It Is necessary for the High 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of 
conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to 
its conclusion to affirm or reverse the order. In a case of later, 
which results in reversal, it is necessary for the High Court to 
assign cogent reasons as to why it does not consider it proper to 
agree with the reasoning of the Sessions Judge by pointing out 
material contradiction in evidence and infirmities In the 
prosecution case. Case at h~nd is of this nature. [Paras 26, 
27](129-C-E) 
Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 
(2004) 3 SCC 654 : [2004) 2 SCR 938 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
(2004) 2 SCR 938 
distinguished 
Para 25 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1918 of2017. 
From the Judgment
and Order dated 22.05.2014 of the High Court 
ofUttarakhand at Nainital in CrimiQal Appeal No. 33 of2005. 
Raj iv Nanda, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Adarsh Upadhyay, Amit Singh, Abhishek Chaudhary, Advs. for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed by the State against the final judgment and 
order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAIRNAIL SINGH 
125 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.33 of2005 whereby the High Court allowed 
A 
the appeal filed by the respondent(accused) herein and set aside the 
order of conviction and sentence dated 01.03.2005 passed by the Trial 
Court in Session Trial Nos.319 & 320 of 2000 by which the 
respondent( accused) was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "!PC") and Section 25(1-A) 
B 
of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for ten years and a fine ofRs.5000/- under Section 307 of 
!PC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 
three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a 
fine of Rs.! 000/- under Section 25( 1-A) of the Arms Act, in default of 
payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Both 
C 
the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 
3. The prosecution case is that on 12.12.1999 at 17.45 hrs., the 
First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Asgar Ali, son of Allah 
Diya, resident ofMohalla Naudhauna, Kasba and Police Station Sherkot, 
District Bijnore in Police StationNanakmatta, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar, 
D 
Uttarakhand. As per the contents of the FIR lodged by Asgar Ali-the 
Complainant, on 08.12.1999, he along with his brother Akbar Ali and 
l 0-12 other persons were doing the trading of sale purchase of paddy of 
Village Devipura. On 12.12.1999, at
around 11.00hrs., when Akbar Ali 
(injured victim) was weighing paddy of Jairnail Singh( accused) in his 
village at Dcvipura, at that time, Jaimail Singh came and made an allegation 
E 
on Akbar Ali that more paddy has been weighed while it had been shown 
less. Akbar Ali denied the allegation. Therefore, Jairnail Singh started 
abusing Akbar Ali and whenAkbat Ali objected, the quarrel erupted and 
Jairnail Singh took out a 12 bore country made pistol from his right pocket 
of his pant and fired on the temple of Akbar Ali, due to which Akbar Ali 
F 
fell down at the spot. Asgar Ali( complainant) and other companions of 
Akbar Ali tried to grab iairnail Singh but he succeeded to escape from 
the spot with the pistol in south direction. The Complainant and his 
companions took the injured Akbar Ali to the Government Hospital, 
Nanamatta on his tractor trolley where no doctor was available. 
Therefore, they w~rit to ·Government Hospital, Khatima where docto~ G 
referred the injured to the Government Hospital, Pilibhit where the injured 
was examined. 
· 
4. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer on 13.12.1999 
at about 12.30 p.m. arrested Jairnail Singh from Nanak Sagar Dam and 
H
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I I S.C.R 
A 
recovered the pistol, which was without license. After completion of the 
investigation. the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet under 
Section 307 !PC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against J aimail Singh 
(accused). 
5. The Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar, 
B 
committed the case for trial to the Session Court. After committal of the 
case to the Session Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur, the Sessions 
Judge, framed ch<irges against the accused-Jaimail Singh under Section 
307 IPC and Seciion 25 of the Arms Act in Session Trial Case No.320 
of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 307 !PC and Session 
. Trial Case No.319 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 25 
C 
of the Arms Act. The accused denied the charges. 
D 
E 
F 
6. The Trial Court conducted the trial in both the cases together. 
By judgment dated 0 l.03.2005, the Trial Court convicted the accused 
for the offences punishable under Section 307 ofIPC and Section 25 of 
the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
ten years for the charge wider Section 307 !PC and a fine ofRs.5000/-
, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three 
months and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under 
Section 25{1-A) of the Arms Act and a fine of R.~. l 000/-, in default of 
payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Both 
the sentences were
directed to run concurrently. 
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the 
rcspondcnt(accuscd) filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.33 of 
2005 before the High Court. The High Court, by impugned judgment, 
allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence of 
the respondent-accused passed by the Trial Court in Session Trial Nos.319 
and 320 of2000. 
8. Felt aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal byway of special 
leave before this Court. 
9. Heard Mr. Raj iv Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant (State) 
G 
and Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, learned cowisel for the respondent (accused). 
H 
IO. Learned counsel for the appellant (State) while assailing the 
legality and correctness of the impugned judgment contended that the 
High Court was not right in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the 
Session Court, which rightly held the respondent-accused guilty of
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAIRNAIL SINGH 
127 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE. J.] 
commission of offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 
A 
25( l-A) of the Arms Act and accordingly had rightly convicted him for 
the said offences. 
l l. It was his submission that the three eye witnesses (PWs-1, 2 
and 3), whose testimony was believed by the Sessions Judge for recording 
conviction of the respondent, should not have been reversed by the High 
B 
Court in the appeal filed by the respondent-accused. According to learned 
counsel, such findings should have been affirmed by the High Court as 
the same was based on proper appreciation of the evidence of the three 
witnesses. 
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the discrepancies, if c 
any, which were made basis by the High Court for acquitting the 
respondent (accused) were technical in nature and did not materially 
affect the prosecution case. Such discrepancies, according to learned 
counsel, should have been ignored being wholly insignificant in the light 
of the law laid down in Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of 
Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC654. 
D 
13. Learned counsel then took us through the evidence of the 
prosecution witnesses and argued that their ocular evidence deserve 
acceptance for convicting the respondent under Section 307 !PC and 
Section 25(!-A) of the Arms Act. 
14. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (accused) supported 
the impugned judgment and contended that no case for any interterence
in the impugned judgment is made out as the same is based on proper 
appreciation of evidence. 
15. It was also his submission that the infirmities noticed by the 
High Court in prosecution case for reversing the judgment of the Session 
Court cannot be faulted with and being material in nature deserve to be 
upheld by this Court as was rightly done by the High Court. 
16. Having heard the learned connsel for the parties and on perusal 
of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. 
17. In other words, in our view, the reasoning and the conclusion 
of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under 
Section 307 !PC and Section 25( 1-A) appears to be just and proper as 
set out below and to which we ~oncur and hence it does not call for any 
interference by this Court. 
E 
F 
G 
H
128 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I l S.C.R. 
18. First, the parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his 
brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye-witnesses 
and the accused were known to each other then why the Complainant-
brother of victiin in his application (Ex-P-A) made immediately after the 
incident to the ChiefMedical Superintendent, Pilibhit did not mention the 
name of the accused and instead mentioned therein "'some sardars". 
19. Second, according to the prosecution, the weapon used in 
commission of offence was recovered from the pocket of the accused 
the next day, it looked improbable as to why would the accused keep the 
pistol all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and 
roam all over. 
20. Third, the weapon (pistol) alleged to have been used in the 
commission of the offence was not sent for forensic examination with a 
view to find out as to whether it was capable of being used to open fire 
and, if so, whether the bullet/palate used could be fired from such gun. 
Similarly, other seized articles such as blood-stained shirt and soil were 
also not sent for forensic examination. 
21. Fourth, weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the concerned 
Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating Officer. 
22. Lastly, if, according to the prosecution case, the shot was hit 
from a very short distance as the accused and the victim were standing 
very near to aach other, then as per
the medical evidence of the Doctor 
(PW-6) a particular type of mark where the bullet was hit should have 
been there but no such mark was noticed on the body. No explanation 
was given for this. This also raised some doubt in the prosecution case. 
23. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, 
therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing 
the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which 
the High Court w.is entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no 
good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by 
the High Court. 
24. In other words, it cannot be said that the aforementioned 
infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical 
in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses. The 
prosecution, in our view, should have taken care of some of the infirmities 
noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have been taken
STATE OF.UTTARAKHAND v. JAIRNAIL SINGH 
129 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. It was, however, 
A 
not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, accordingly, rightly given 
to the respondent by the High Court. 
25. In the light of the aforementioned infirmities noticed in the 
prosecution case which, in our opinion, were material, the decision cited 
by the learned counsel forthe appellant (State) cannot be applied to the 
B 
facts of the case at hand. It is distinguishable. 
26. Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in this 
appeill, unless we are able to notice any kind ofillegality in the impugned 
judgment, we cannot interfere in such judgment. In other words, it is 
only when we find that the impugned judgment is based on no evidence c 
or/and it contains no reasoning or when it is noticed that the reasoning 
given are wholly perverse, this Court may consider it proper in appropriate 
case to interfere and reverse the decision of the High Court. 
27. But when the High Court while reversing the decision of the 
Session Court acquits the accused and assigns the reasons by appreciating D 
the entire evidence in support of the acquittal, then this Court would not 
be inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal. In our view, it is necessary 
for the High Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of 
conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to its conclusion 
to affirm or
reverse the order. In a case oflater, which results in reversal, 
with which we arc here concerned, it is necessary for the High Court to 
E 
assign cogent reasons as to why it does not consider it proper to agree 
with the reasoning of the Sessions Judge by pointing out material 
contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case. Case at 
hand is of this nature. 
28. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. 
F 
The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 
Nid~i Jain 
Appeal dismissed.