#accused Archives - Prime Legal

19 Apr

“The Supreme Court addresses fundamental rights, justice, and judicial accountability while disapproving of the High Court’s ruling in a murder case.”

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #accused, #HighCourt, #murder, culpable homicide, exceptions to murder, s.302, s.304

Case Title: Manikandan v. State by The Inspector of Police

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2019

Dated On: 5th April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case centres on the murder of a man named Balamurugan who resided with his parents. The deceased allegedly gave accused no. 1 instructions to deliver idlis, and later that evening, upon discovering that accused no. 1 had neglected to do so, he went to his residence to confront him, according to the prosecution.

It seems that his altercation with Accused No. 1 was the cause of the disturbance. The prosecution claims that upon hearing the disturbance, PW-2 (mother of the deceased) and PW-3 (the brother-in-law of the dead) raced over to the location. Accused no. 2 was in the area. Following that, Accused No. 1 went into his home, took a billhook with him, and used it to beat the deceased. The deceased’s right index finger took the first blow. The deceased then fled to a neighbouring property belonging to a Karunanidhi. The accused trailed after him. While accused no. 1 was assaulting the deceased by placing a billhook around his neck, accused no. 2 was holding the deceased. subsequent to that, both the accused ran away.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

The appellants claimed that the initial information report indicated that the incident happened about 10.30 p.m., according to the skilled attorney representing the appellant. That being said, based on the post-mortem reports’ mention of the estimated time of death, it seems that the incident had to have occurred prior to 7 pm. The second claim he makes is that the prosecution primarily examined witnesses who were close to the dead, even though there were other impartial eyewitnesses present.

In his second admission, he alleges that despite the fact there were numerous unaffiliated eyewitnesses, the prosecution had only decided to question those who were interested and directly connected to the killed.

He claimed that the post-mortem records revealed the dead had one small cut on his finger and one cut on his neck. He added that there was an unexpected altercation between the dead and the accused number one, and that during that altercation, the accused number one attacked the deceased without any warning. Consequently, he would argue that this is an instance in which Section 300 of the IPC’s Exception 4 will apply, making it an offence under Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

Asserting that there are no significant inconsistencies or omissions in the evidence of PWs 2 through 5, which instils confidence, was the learned counsel representing the respondent, the State.

He contended that there was a clear intention on the part of accused no. 1 to assault the deceased, as evidenced by the fact that, following a disagreement with the deceased, he entered his home, brought a billhook, and attacked the victim. Learned counsel argued that the deceased sought to flee after the accused number one struck him once on the index finger.

The dead was chased by both accused; accuser no. 2 restrained the deceased, and accused no. 1 then fatally struck the deceased in the neck with a billhook. He recommended the exclusion of this case from the provisions of Section 300 of the IPC’s Exception 4.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

S.300 provides the exceptions to Murder. Exception 4- If the crime is done in the midst of a furious argument, without any prior planning, and without the perpetrator taking unfair advantage of the situation or acting in an unusually harsh way, it is considered culpable homicide rather than murder.

S.302 of The IPC- It prescribes punishment for intentionally causing the death of another person, in simpler terms, Murder.

COURT’S ANANLYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The Court pronounced the judgment by initially stating that during PW2’s main cross-examination, she tried to establish a case that the accused had disparaged her daughter-in-law. To be fair, she didn’t say as much in the police-recorded statement. Most significantly, she said during cross-examination by accused no. She stated “Yesterday, my husband, myself, and other witnesses went to the Haridwar Mangalam Police station.” There, we received instruction on how to present evidence from the police.

The Court further laid down that It is important to remember that PW-1 through PW-5’s evidence was recorded on November 20, 2008. It is evident from this that on November 19, 2008, the first five interested witnesses—PW-1 through PW-5—who were close relatives of the dead were summoned to the police station, where they received instruction from the police on how to make a deposition against the accused.

It’s important to remember that the prosecution refrained from asking the witness any questions throughout the re-examination. The investigating officer provided no justification for this. Since the first five witnesses were “taught” how to depose at the Police Station, the court was compelled to proceed on that premise.

This leads to the situation that appears, which is that PWs 1 through 5 were called to the Police Station and instructed on how to depose exactly one day prior to their testimony being recorded before the Trial Court. What would happen if witnesses in a police station were “taught”? It is conceivable. The cops are clearly trying to influence the material witnesses for the prosecution with this brazen action. As interested witnesses, they were all of them. Since it is quite likely that the aforementioned witnesses received instruction from the police on the previous day.

The court was rather disappointed by the Police and further, to put it mildly, held that this type of police meddling in the legal system was disturbing. This was a blatant abuse of authority on the part of the police apparatus. The prosecution witness cannot be tutored by the police. Even if there are more eyewitnesses, their statements were concealed, making this behaviour even more terrible.

The court, while pronouncing the judgment, held that the appellants were wrongfully convicted by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. The appeals were therefore granted. The appellants were found not guilty of the charges brought against them, and the contested judgements and decrees are overturned. Their bail bonds were cancelled.

“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.”

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

29 Mar

A Stricter Approach is required to be taken in granting Bail to Police in Custodial Death Cases: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #accused, #Allahabad HC, #Article 136, #bail order, #Custodial Death, #exception, #Police

Case title: Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) No.9816/2023

Decision on: March 12th, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the case

The appellant before this Court is the complainant, who reported the death of his brother in police custody on 12th February, 2021. The deceased was arrested in connection with a robbery case and was taken into the police custody. The appellant accused the police officials for his brother’s death. A charge-sheet was submitted against 19 police officials, which included the allegations of commission of offences under Section 34 read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allahabad High Court, however, granted bail to one of the police constables accused of commission of the said offence. The Appellant assailed this decision of the Court before the Apex Court.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Counsel questioned the legality of the order passed by the High Court. He vehemently submitted that the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Mrs. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the said agency, also supported the appellant’s case.

Contentions of the Respondent

The Counsel submitted that his client, being a police constable, was working as a substitute driver, only as a stopgap arrangement, and had no role to play in the alleged commission of the offence on that date. He contended that the High Court granting him a bail primarily on this ground was valid.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Bench on perusal of the charge-sheet observed a certain role attributed to the respondent in the commission of the alleged offences. It rejected the argument of the respondent and noted that his role was not confined to just being a driver of a police vehicle so far as commission of the alleged offences is concerned.

The Court highlighted a peculiar circumstance of custodial death to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in order to invalidate a bail order. It observed that such offences being grave and serious in nature ought to be dealt cautiously. The Court mainly relied on the precedence in State of Jharkhand vs Sandeep Kumar to decide the case. This case dealt with an anticipatory bail granted to an accused police official. It pointed out that the offence in that case was much more serious in nature and decided to apply the same principle.

The Bench made an exception from the general rule of granting bail and adopted a stricter approach. This was primarily on two grounds which were in consonance with the principles applied in the Sandeep Kumar case. They are:

The first one is that respondent No.3 is part of the police force and the allegation is that of custodial death, in which he has been implicated. In cases of this nature, having regard to the overall influence a member of a police force may wield in connection with a case against them pertaining to custodial death, a stricter view is to be taken on the question of granting bail.
Secondly, the charge is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has been enlarged on bail within 1 and ½ years of his detention. The alleged offence is of grave and serious nature and that factor has not been properly considered by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, in light of the above observations held that such a stricter view is required partly because a police officer may wield more influence than an ordinary person and thereby set aside the impugned order of the High Court. It directed the respondent to surrender before the CBI Court within a period of four weeks. Therefore, it clarified that these observations were purely relate to the question of grant of bail and stated that the same shall not in any way influence the trial.

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

16 Feb

The collective action of all the accused indicates sharing of common intention: Supreme Court.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #accused, #criminalappeal, #intention, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Ram Naresh vs State of U.P

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 3577 Of 2023

Decided on: 1.12.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present appeal arises from the trial court’s judgement and order convicting and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the High Court’s affirmance of the same.

ISSUE RAISED:

Whether the appellant and the other co-accused had a common intention to kill the deceased?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

According to Section 34 of the IPC, when several people commit a criminal act with the same intention, each person is liable for that act as if he did it alone. As a result, if the accused’s participation in a crime is proven, as well as the common intention, Section 34 of the IPC will apply. Section 34 IPC does not require a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. Even during the incident, i.e. during the commission of the crime, a common intention can emerge.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that the trial court did not consider any evidence to record a finding of “common intention” on the appellant’s part, and thus Section 34 IPC could not be used to convict him. He went on to say that the evidence on the subject has not even been discussed by the High Court.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined that the evidence on record proves beyond a doubt that the accused persons attacked the deceased with the intent to kill him. The fact that they were all related and armed when they arrived at the scene indicates that they intended to kill him.
It stated that the accused had arrived on the scene collectively and delivered serious vital blows to the deceased with the weapons they were armed with, resulting in his death. The collective action of all the accused indicated a shared intention.

The argument that the appellant cannot be found guilty by using Section 34 IPC to support his or her conviction is without merit and cannot be upheld in light of the evidence in the record as well as the decisions made by the trial and high courts. As a result, the appeal is rejected without merit.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

20 Sep

Madras High Court says there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court in convicting an accused.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #accused, #Convicting, #Justice G. Jayachandran, #MadrasHighCourt, #Trailcourt

Title: V. Radhakrishnan. Vs. The State.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

Crl.A.No.627 of 2016.

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran.

Facts:

The accused while serving as VAO of Kottathupatty Village, demand of illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- in two instalments of Rs.1000/- by the accused for name transfer in the Patta was lodged on 24.11.2003 at 9.30 a.m. After registration of the case, trap was laid. At about 15.15 hours the accused demanded and accepted Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant. The said transaction was witnessed by the shadow witness Paramasivam.The phenolphthalein smeared currency of one 500 Rupees notes and five hundred rupees notes were recovered from the accused which was kept in the left outer shirt pocket. The trial Court framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The trial Court accepting the case of the defacto complainant regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.1000/- as bribe by the accused on 24.11.2003, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 6 months S.I for the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act and to undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo S.I for 6 months. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

It is a case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- smeared with the phenolphthalein and marked under the Entrustment Mahazar was recovered from the accused under Seizure Mahazar. The currency recovered from the accused tallied with the currency number found in the Entrustment Mahazar. In addition, the hands of the accused was tested with the Sodium Carbonate solution. The solution turned red indicates handling of phenolphthalein. The shirt pocket portion where the money was kept by the accused also subjected to the phenolphthalein test and proved positive. The trial Court has also found that there is no corroboration for the allegations of second demand on 22.11.2003. However, the third demand on the day of the trap and successful completion of the trap leads to the inference of the previous demand. The third demand and proof of third demand cannot be an inference for the earlier demand unless and until, it is proved beyond doubt. In this case the second demand on 22.11.2003 lacks corroboration, but it does not disproved the case of the prosecution in respect of the demand on 24.11.2003 and the receipt of the same by the accused. The defence taken by the accused that the money was planted in his shirt pocket is not probable, since not only his shirt pocket portion, but both of his hands were found positive for phenolphthalein. Unless and until the accused had received the money and counted it before keeping it in his pocket, it is impossible for both his hands to contact phenolphthalein. Neither PW.2 nor PW.3 had any animosity against this appellant to depose facts which is not true. Inspite of incise cross examination of these two witnesses, their credibility has not impeached. Therefore, the evidence of 2^nd witness corroborated by the eye witness 3^rd witness of the prosecution for demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/- on 24.11.2003 during the trap besides scientific proof. Recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused prove the case of the prosecution to the core. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court.

Conclusion:

The Court Concludes that this Criminal Appeal shall be dismissed and the trial Court conviction and sentence shall be confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

11 Sep

Madras High Court remands back to the file of Metropolitan Magistrate in granting ‘A’ Class facility to the accused.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #'A' Class facility, #accused, #MadrasHighCourt, #Metropolitan Magistrate

TITLE: Pratik Vs. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police.

Decided On: September 7, 2023.

Crl.O.P No.19648 of 2023.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Facts:

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.234 of 2022 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.01.2023. The petitioner filed a petition before the Court below by relying upon Rule 815 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, seeking for ‘A’ Class facility. The petitioner is a B.E. graduate and he has also specifically stated that he is accustomed to a superior mode of living. The Court below dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Court looked in to the Rule 815 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, it is seen that such status is given to the prisoners only based on the education and habit of life to which the concerned prisoner is accustomed to and that such prisoner is used to a superior mode of living. The Court below was satisfied with the first condition insofar as educational qualification is concerned. When it came to the second condition, the Court below went into the merits of the case and found that the petitioner was a prisoner, who failed to repay a huge amount of money to the de facto complainant. In the considered view of this Court, the concerned Rule does not anywhere require the Court to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner must show that he was accustomed to a superior mode of living. The Court below did not go into this issue at all and the petition was rejected more on the ground of the conduct of the petitioner in the alleged crime. The petitioner is directed to produce materials before the Court below to substantiate that he is accustomed to a superior mode of living. The Court below, on being satisfied with the same, shall direct the prison authorities to provide ‘A’ Class prison facility to the petitioner. This process shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the matter is remanded back to the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB/CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner is directed to produce materials before the Court below to substantiate that he is accustomed to a superior mode of living.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2