0

Conviction cannot be imposed based on statements made by untrustworthy witnesses: the Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , ,

Case title: State of Haryana vs Mohd. Yunus & Ors.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2012

Decided on: 12.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M.M Sundresh, Hon’ble Justice Prasant Kumar Mishra

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

There are four accused who have faced trail for the commission of offence of murder. The trail court acquitted one of the accused and convicted the other three. The other three who are convicted went for appeal to the high court. The court rejected the appeal of two of the accused and reduced the charges of one of the accused named Mohd. Yunus. The current appeal is by the State, challenging the High Court’s decision to acquit Mohd. Yunus of charges under Section 302 of the IPC while convicting him under Section 323 of the IPC.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of the IPC states that a person who commits murder will face the death penalty. Section 34 of the IPC addresses common intention. When two or more people commit a criminal act with the same intention, all of them are liable.

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for voluntarily causing harm. It states that anyone who intentionally causes harm to another person will face imprisonment.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant contended that the same set of evidence that was used to convict Mohd. Jamil, one of the accused, should have been considered when upholding Mohd. Yunus’ conviction for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They contended that the High Court erred in acquitting Mohd. Yunus of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined in the second trial that both of the prosecution’s star witnesses should be disbelieved because their statements are contradictory, the facts are twisted, and improvements are made. For a trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy for allegedly twisting the facts and making a contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction based on such a statement. When there is an attempt to falsely implicate one accused person, a statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be trusted without strong corroboration. As a result, the State of Haryana’s criminal appeal challenging Mohd. Yunus’ acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been dismissed.

 

“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

The accused’s intention is an essential factor for conviction in SC/ST atrocities cases: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case title: Dashrath Sahu Vs State Of Chattisgarh

Case no.: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

Decided on: 29.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He received a one-year sentence of simple imprisonment and a fine.

The appellant filed a challenge to the said judgement in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the course of the appeal, the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant appear to have reached an amicable settlement. The High Court accepted the compromise application for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted the accused, but rejected it for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, stating that it is not compoundable and the minimum sentence is six months. As a result, the accused appellant’s sentence of simple imprisonment for one year on that count was reduced to six months.

The appellant filed the present appeal after being dissatisfied with the order dated March 21, 2023.

ISSUE:

whether the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC and the appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act were legitimate and justified?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act of 1989 addresses punishments for atrocities of assault or the use of force with the intent to dishonour or outrage the modesty of any SC/ST women.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that the section, taken literally, makes it quite evident that the offence of outraging modesty has to be committed with the knowledge or intent that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.

According to the FIR and the prosecutrix’s sworn testimony, the accused did not commit the offending act with the intention of doing so against a Scheduled Caste member.

The court cited the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, in which the court ruled that the language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia because it also states that the offence must be committed against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent that it was done on the basis of caste.

As a result, the accused appellant’s conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, which was recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court, is set aside and quashed.

 

“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 the judgment

0

Modern criminal justice prioritizes the Reformative aim of punishment, not mere Retribution: Calcutta High Court.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title: Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others

Case No: W.P.A 22366 of 2023

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Coram: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt

 

Facts of the Case

Two key arguments have been raised by the petitioner, the wife of a life-sentenced convict, against the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board’s (SSRB) rejection of her application. Firstly, she claims the SSRB’s composition wasn’t compliant with proper procedures. Secondly, she asserts that the Board’s reasoning for denial contradicts rulings consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, this Court, and other High Courts. In support of this second point, she cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar, where the apex court stressed the reformative purpose of imprisonment, even for major offenses, after serving a substantial sentence.

The details outlined in the writ petition about the comprehensiveness of the rejection grounds, stemmed from the petitioner’s Right to Information Act,2005 request seeking clarification on her husband’s denied premature release application. Notably, the petitioner’s husband has already served over two decades in custody.

Issue

  • Whether Article 21 can be denied merely because the petitioner’s husband was convicted?
  • Whether petitioner through Right to Information Act,2005 seek clarification on her husband’s denied premature release application?

Legal Provision

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution –

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.

Right to Information Act 2005 –

It mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information. It is an initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a– RTI Portal Gateway to the citizens for quick search of information on the details of first Appellate Authorities,PIOs etc. amongst others, besides access to RTI related information / disclosures published on the web by various Public Authorities under the government of India as well as the State Governments

Court Decision and analysis

In considering a life sentence review, the court went beyond the mere severity of the crime and its wider impact. They emphasized additional factors for the government to assess, not just future danger but also the possibility of redemption and societal reintegration. This includes considering the convict’s age, health, family ties, and potential for rebuilding life. Positive developments like earned remission, educational progress, and prison engagement are vital indicators. Notably, the court warned against relying solely on the judge’s opinion or police reports, highlighting the need for a nuanced evaluation based on various factors contributing to the convict’s overall development and potential for a positive future. This holistic approach emphasizes the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration, offering hope beyond the initial sentence. The same view was reiterated in certain judgments like Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal AIR Online 2022 CAL 2520 as well as two unreported judgments in Narayan Mahato alias Naran Mahato vs. State of West Bengal and Biresh Poddar and another vs. State of West Bengal and others etc.

It’s crucial to remember that modern criminal justice prioritizes the reformative aim of punishment, not mere retribution. Moreover, apart from the crime’s nature and future risk, the Supreme Court has consistently stressed several additional factors for consideration in such cases.

Examining the rejection grounds, we find a crucial absence – consideration of the factors beyond the crime itself. No reports appear to have been consulted from the Probation Officer or prison management regarding the petitioner’s ongoing conduct and progress throughout his incarceration. Similarly, details about his participation in rehabilitation programs, education, or productive work while in custody are missing. Notably, the cited police report seems fixated on the crime’s distant past, offering cryptic reasons without concrete evidence. The supposed risk of witness retaliation, for instance, feels like mere speculation. Adding to this, while the family’s poor socio-economic status and victim’s family’s opposition are mentioned, these lack clear justification. Furthermore, the petitioner’s own wife seeking his release casts doubt on the narrative of family resistance. In essence, the rejection grounds fail to address crucial aspects of the petitioner’s present circumstance and potential for reintegration, raising concerns about the process’s thoroughness and fairness.

The right of the petitioner under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner was convicted.

The petitioner, having endured lengthy incarceration, deserves a chance at reintegration. Denying premature release becomes double punishment, especially considering their potential eligibility. Further, the Board’s improper composition casts doubt on the process. Therefore, we direct the authorities to have a properly constituted Board re-evaluate the petitioner’s request, considering all relevant factors, including those outlined above. This reconsideration should be done within a month. No costs awarded.

 

 

“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 falls into the 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- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement