Blog

Case Title: State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s).1307 of 2012

Decided on: 12^th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH AND HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Facts of the Case

In this particular case, four individuals (referred to as A1, A2, A3, and A4) were accused of assaulting and beating the deceased. A1, A2, and A3 were found guilty by the trial court for offenses under Sections 302 and 323, along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A4, who had initially evaded authorities, later surrendered before the Trial Court, leading to a separate trial where he was acquitted of the charges.

Upon the appeal by A1, A2, and A3, the High Court dismissed the appeals regarding A3 and A2. However, the High Court partially acquitted A1 of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC while maintaining his conviction for the offense under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. A1 was sentenced for the time already served. Meanwhile, A3 passed away, A1 received a partial conviction, and A4 was discharged, leaving the conviction of A2 as the only one that remained.

The State of Haryana filed the current criminal appeal against the High Court’s order, challenging the partial conviction of A1 under Sections 323 r/w 34 and seeking to contest the acquittal for the murder charges. Additionally, A2 filed a separate criminal appeal, contesting his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Issue

The key issue in this case revolves around the credibility of prosecution evidence, leading to the overturning of A2’s conviction and the sustaining of A1’s conviction under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Legal Provision

Section 302 of IPC prescribes the punishment for murder: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or a fine to one thousand rupees, or both.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an individual in a murder case dating back to 1999. Expressing skepticism towards the testimonies provided by the prosecution witnesses, the Court nullified the conviction for offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 323 (simple hurt) along with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra aligned with the Trial Court’s determination that both crucial prosecution witnesses had altered and improved their statements. The Court emphasized that reliance cannot be placed on statements that exhibit contradictions, factual distortions, and enhancements.

The court ultimately concluded that serious doubts surround the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence due to the manipulation of facts and the introduction of improvements. Consequently, the court determined that it is not prudent to convict A2 for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on the statements provided by such eyewitness. As a result, the court overturned the contested order and judgment from the High Court, which had convicted A2.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, which sought to challenge the exoneration of A1 from charges framed under Section 34 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, the court upheld the conviction of A1 under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement