CASE DETAILS v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
The appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above
Provisions considered
Judgment
Held : Appellant arrested for carrying fi ve litres of Arrack in his autorickshaw – Trial Court sentenced appellant to one year of imprisonment 95 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. – High Court endorsed the fi nding of the trial Court – More than 20 years have passed since the commission of the off ence, thus sentence of appellant modifi ed to period of three months, simple imprisonment. [Para 33] Evidence – Conviction solely on basis of offi cial witnesses: Held : If the evidence of a police offi cer/offi cial witness is found to be reliable, trustworthy then basing the conviction thereupon, cannot be questioned, and the same shall stand on fi rm ground. [Para 22] Evidence – Testimony of offi cial witnesses – Correctness of: Held : The testimonies of offi cial witnesses can nay be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined – The correctness or authenticity is only to be doubted on “any good reason” which, quite apparently is missing from the instant case. [Para 26] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Investigation – Plea of investigation not being fair: Held : Questioning investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case – In instant case, nothing was put forward to show that there may be a reasonable ground for the presence of bias or that there may be “a real danger of bias”. [Paras 16 and 20] Delay/Laches: Held : A “fair trial”, is a right fl owing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial”. [Para 28] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120: [2020] 9 SCR 245 – followed. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 : [1970] 1 SCR 457; N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India (2012) 4 SCC 653 : [2012] 2 SCR 433; Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 6 SCC 588 : [2013] 8 SCR 323; State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 144; Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 674 : SATHYAN v. STATE OF KERALA 97 [2015] 6 SCR 175; Dilawar v. State of Haryana (2018) 16 SCC 521 : [2018] 5 SCR 655 – relied on.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173; Constitution of India — art. 21; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.