2

“Supreme Court Overturns Conviction: Lack of Conclusive Evidence Leads to Acquittal in Landmark Criminal Appeal”

Blog, Supreme court , , , 2

Case Title – Arun Shankar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024 INSC 298)

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 001186-001186/2022

Order Number – 5th December, 2017

Quorum – Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 In the case of Arun Shankar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024 INSC 298), the appellant and the deceased (Sushildhar Dubey) were related and were residents of a village named Amgaon. Both the appellant and the deceased were habituated to consume alcoholic beverages together. On September 29, 1993, the appellant visited the house of the deceased and implored him to partake in consuming alcohol. This scenario was spectated by a witness. However, nobody witnessed any further sightings of the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased’s body was retrieved on 30th September,1993. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was duly confirmed by the High Court. Further, the appellant was sentenced to serve for life imprisonment. However, the appellant was acquitted by the High Court due to lack of Conclusive Evidence.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the respondent’s argument on the “Last Seen Together” Evidence is deemed to be a weak piece of evidence taking into consideration the close relationship between the appellant and the deceased.
  2. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the knife retrieved at the appellant’s instance could not be concluded to be knife possibly used for the purpose of murder of the deceased since the knife could have been planted to deliberately implicate the appellant.
  3. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the respondent failed to prove the motive for the commission of the offense on the part of the appellant given the good relationship between the appellant and the deceased.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the case is based on circumstantial evidences and that the legal principles administering the case is well established.
  2. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the circumstantial evidences in this case are- (i) Recovery of the knife alleged to be used in the commission of the murder of the deceased, (ii) Medical report of the deceased’s bodily injuries and the cause of death, (iii) The last seen together, and (iv) The habit of consuming alcoholic beverages together.
  3. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the use of the knife was proven and that all required circumstance forming parts of the chain of events have been established.
  4. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that taking into consideration the oral testimony of the PW-7 and PW-15 collectively, the theory of death of the deceased due a motorcycle accident cannot entirely be discounted. Hence, the benefit of doubt should be on the appellant.
  5. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the body was discovered in close proximity of the last known presence of the appellant and the deceased.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 201 of IPC prescribes the Punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
  2. 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.

ISSUES 

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether for the purpose of conviction of the appellant for the offenses of murder and destruction of evidence, the furnished by the respondent was enough?
  2. The issue of the case also involved whether the assertion of the defense concerning the weaknesses of the circumstantial evidence and the absence of motive held merit?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Arun Shankar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024 INSC 298) observed that there is a grammatical and legal differentiation between ‘May be proved’ or ‘Must be or should be proved’ and that the accused is needed to be strongly proven guilty, not assumed to be guilty before a court can convict the accused. The court analysed that there should be consistency of the circumstances only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt and that the nature of the circumstances should be conclusive and tendency. The court highlighted that it remained unproven the discovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant and that it remained a mystery, the presence of a large number of glasses in and around the place of the discovery of the body of the deceased. The court stated that the chain of circumstances was unestablished and that the theory of last scene was not proved in the absence of any motive on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased since the appellant being in the company of the deceased was habitual and usual.

Hence, the court in the case of Arun Shankar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024 INSC 298) stated that since the appellant is on bail, he is allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. Moreover, the bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. The court decided that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and the appellant is thus acquitted of all charges imposed on him.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click here to View Judgment

 

0

The High Court cannot interfere in the Criminal Acquittal Appeal unless the findings of the Trial Judge is Perverse or Impossible: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018

Decision on: April 2nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case

In this case the deceased Mahesh Sahu was in a relationship with Anita, the sister of the appellant. The couple after staying together in Agra for eight months returned to Damoh . Subsequently, the marriage of Anita was solemnized with another person. But, even then, the couple continued to stay in touch.  The appellants due to enmity alleged to have caused the death of Mahesh in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witness who saw the appellants dragging a dead body from the house and washing the blood stains at the door of their house. The Trial Judge acquitted the accused persons since the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court by the impugned judgment reversed the decision of the trial Judge and convicted the appellant 1 & 2 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC and Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC respectively with rigorous imprisonment for life.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court had grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal and neglected to observe elaborate reasonings of the Trial Court on the failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and unless the prosecution is able to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt it is not permissible to interfere with the findings of the trial Judge and to record the finding of conviction.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

The Counsel for the State submitted that the trial Judge has totally misread the evidence. He submitted that the evidence of Beni Prasad and Sumitra Bai coupled with the medical evidence, would show that that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue – Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to adetermine the guilt of the appellants for committing the crime?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court stated that the case was clearly based on the circumstantial evidence and accordingly perused the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which laid down five golden principles for the same. It inferred from the said judgement that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Also, emphasized that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. Further, it noted that no matter how strong the suspicion is, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated the legal principle that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court analyzed the elaborate facts and circumstantial evidence discussed by the Trial Judge. It noted that the prosecution had failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and to provide the interlinked chain of circumstances to conclude the guilt of the accused persons. It asserted the findings of the Trial Judge in providing sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and the other witnesses and noted that the High Court had erred in observing the same.

The Court noted that the High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible, which was absent in the present case. It held that the decision of High Court was totally based on conjectures and surmises and unsustainable in law. The Apex Court thereby set aside the impugned order of the High Court and acquitted the accused persons.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC should not be considered as an evidence: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2010

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This special leave appeal is based on the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s judgement and order dated July 23, 2009, in Criminal Appeal No.593-DB of 2000.

The deceased, Amrik Kaur, married the appellant, Darshan Singh, sometime in 1988. Melo Kaur, the deceased’s cousin sister, helped arrange the marriage. The prosecution claims that Darshan Singh’s illicit partnership with Rani Kaur (A2) strained their marital relationship. Several relatives had urged the appellant to end his relationship with Rani Kaur, but to no avail. Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur allegedly had an illicit relationship for at least three years prior to the fateful day. The prosecution claims that on the intervening night of May 18, 1999, and May 19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur administered poison and intentionally caused Amrik Kaur’s death.

Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were charged with violating Section 302 of the IPC in conjunction with Section 34. The Trial Court convicted both of the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to life in prison. In the appeal, the High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s findings in relation to the appellant and acquitted Rani Kaur by giving her the benefit of the doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. What is the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of his defence?
  2. If circumstantial evidence is the only basis for a conviction, what standards should be applied when assessing it?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.

Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

According to the court ruling on circumstantial evidence, the court cited the case of Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 which held that a case involving circumstantial evidence typically follows this pattern: the circumstances from which the accused’s guilt is to be inferred must be persuasively and firmly established, they must have a clear tendency that unmistakably points to the accused’s guilt, and when the circumstances are considered cumulatively, they should form a chain so complete that there is no way out of the conclusion. According to the prosecution’s case, the illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur was the primary motivation for them to collaborate in the murder of the deceased. The testimony of witnesses provides sufficient evidence that they were in an illicit relationship. As a result, the situation has been clearly established.

When dealing with Melo Kaur’s illiteracy, the court ruled that the appreciation of evidence presented by such a witness must be treated differently than that of other witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a highly technical investigation, and undue emphasis should not be placed on imprecise details revealed in the evidence. If the deposition contains minor contradictions or inconsistencies, the testimony of a rustic/illiterate witness should not be ignored.

However, Melo kaur’s testimony suffers from more than just technical flaws; there are glaring omissions and improvements revealed during cross-examination that cannot be attributed to the individual deposition’s illiteracy. Minor contradictions and inconsistencies could have been overlooked because the recollection of exact details about location and time can be attributed to illiteracy, which is not the case here.

When discussing the standard of proof under Section 313 of the Crpc, the court cited the case of Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711 in which the court ruled that the standard of proof that an accused must meet in support of his defence under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus the prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge. The accused only needs to raise a question, and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused will not benefit from the situation.

The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the accused.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that no specific plea of alibi was made in the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Indeed, it is claimed that there is an implicit admission of his presence in the house. It is well established that an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, is not given the opportunity to cross-examine the accused. It is well established law that a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used as the sole basis for conviction. As a result, the appellant’s presence cannot be determined solely based on his statement, despite the lack of independent evidence presented by the prosecution.

Finally, the court ruled that we do not need to consider the evidence relating to other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution because failure to prove a single circumstance convincingly can cause a break in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of events. When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should be no break in the chain of events. If the chain snaps, the accused has the benefit of the doubt. If some of the events in the chain can be explained by another reasonable hypothesis, then the accused is also entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the court allowed this appeal and set aside the lower court’s concurrent findings of conviction.

 

“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 – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

 

0

Circumstantial evidence may not lead to an accurate decision in the execution of justice says Punjab High Court

blog ,

TITLE – Kaur v State of Punjab

Decided On- :16.06.2023

CRR-684-2007 (O&M)

CORAM:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

INTRODUCTION – False implication undermines the foundation of an inquiry, which must be carried out in good faith. The public may lose faith in the integrity of the judicial system if there are indications of corruption in ongoing procedures.

  FACTS OF THE CASE

Kaur, who is 16 years old and 4 months old and is enrolled in class XI, made a statement that led to the registration of FIR No. 132, dated August 16, 2003, against unidentified individuals under Sections 302/452/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (later adding Section 120-B IPC and deleting Section 452 IPC). She fell asleep on a cot in the verandah at around 12.30 am. After about 15 to 20 minutes, she heard a sound coming from the room. She noticed two people approaching from the side of the still-under-construction kothi who were between the ages of 25 and 30 and who could be recognised if they were brought before her. One of them took the weapon, loaded it, and shot one of them in the After that, he shot her father in the right temple with the gun before fleeing the scene. When her father was admitted to the hospital, succumbed to the injuries

She was charged under Sections 302 IPC and 25(54)(59) of the Arms Act after a prima facie case was established; she pleaded not guilty and requested a trial. The Juvenile Justice Boar heard the case against the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and that the courts below had wrongfully convicted her because there was no credible evidence connecting her to the crime.

the motive behind the commission of the offence was not proved.

The actual genesis of the false implication of the petitioner was to disentitle her from inheriting the property in view of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Petitioner who, according to her extrajudicial confession, committed the crime while under the influence of intoxicants,was cleared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The claims made by PW1 Gulzar Singh and PW2 Balkar Singh are materially in conflict. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000’s Section 15(1)(g)(ii) allows for sentences to be given for the time a juvenile is still considered to be one, and the maximum sentence that could have been given under the 2006 amendment to Section 15(1)(g) was three years, so the five-year sentence could not have been given.

 The deceased Milkha Singh died on account of a firearm injury. There were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the prosecution case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence. Several questions of law that arise for consideration

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION  

The court has heard all the witnesses brought by the prosecution but since the very base of the for the verdict to be passed should be substantive and not circumstantial.

In a case involving circumstantial evidence, the court must review the entire body of evidence and make sure that the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is the accused’s guilt. Contrarily, in the current case, there are glaring gaps in the evidence that this Court has found extremely challenging to fill in the string of facts and circumstances that were required to be painstakingly connected, making it far from being established-pointing to the petitioner’s guilt.

An offence is proven when there is sufficient evidence of it in the public record, not when the court finds that an accused person has committed a crime. In the absence of any compelling or reliable evidence to support these allegations, this Court finds it difficult to give them any credence.

The unavoidable conclusion of this Court is that the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The contested judgments are hereby overturned. The petitioner’s provided bail bonds will no longer be valid.

“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-  Steffi DesousaClick here to view judgement