#evidence Archives - Page 2 of 3

13 Feb

Circumstantial evidence requires that the facts to support the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #evidence, #investigation, #law, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Pradeep Kumar vs The state of Haryana

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2010

Decided on: 05.01.2024

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

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The sole appellant in this case was tried alongside another accused for the murder of one Samsher Singh, and the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence in the judgement impugned. This brings us to the current appeal.

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.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellants contended that the evidence which was accepted by the Trial Court and High Court, is based on circumstantial evidence said to have been established by the witnesses are unreliable.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After analysing the witnesses’ statements, the court concluded that there is a significant gap between the charge against the Appellant and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The circumstances do not establish the appellant’s guilt. While the principle of circumstantial evidence requires that the facts be consistent with the accused’s guilt hypothesis, the evidence presented in this case raises doubts, improbabilities, and inconsistencies. The court stated that after carefully considering the case and noting the various discrepancies and improbabilities, it is clear that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant is eligible for acquittal.

“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 judgment

6 Feb

Power to record additional evidence should only be exercised when the party was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #evidence, #judgment, #law, #NIact, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case no.: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 16641 of 2023

Decided on: 29.01.2024

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

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current SLP appeal is based on a Gujarat High Court order. The appellant was charged with violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that a cheque in the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs issued by the appellant in favour of the complainant Shri Mahadevsinh Cahndaasinh Champavat was dishonoured “for insufficient funds and account dormant” when presented in the bank.

During the trial, the appellant filed an application with the learned trial Court requesting that the cheque be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison of the handwriting and signature appearing on it, claiming that his signatures had been forged on the cheque in question. The trial Court denied the application and convicted the appellant. On appeal, the high court rejected and upheld the conviction. As a result, the Supreme Court is hearing the appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The appellant filed the appeal with an application under Section 391 CrPC. According to Section 391 of the CrPC, the power to record additional evidence should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence, or when the facts giving rise to such prayer were discovered at a later stage during the pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may result in the failure of justice.

The NI Act’s Section 118 Subclause (e) clearly presumes that endorsements made on a negotiable instrument are made in the order that they appear on the document. Therefore, the holder of the disputed cheque, who is the complainant in this instance, benefits from the presumption that the endorsements on it are authentic.

APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS:

After comparing the admitted signature of the accused appellant with the signature on the disputed cheque, the appellant filed an application to have the handwriting expert’s opinion. In the aforementioned application, there was also a request to summon the relevant Post Office officer in order to support the defence’s argument that the accused appellant never received the notice required by Section 138 of the NI Act.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that a certified copy of a bank-issued document is admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act of 1891 even without any formal proof. Thus, we believe that if the appellant wanted to prove that the signatures on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, he could have obtained a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and made a request to summon the concerned Bank official in defence to give evidence about the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque.

The court stated that, despite having the opportunity, the accused appellant did not question the bank official examined in defence to establish his plea of purported mismatch of signature on the cheque in question, and thus, they are of the firm opinion that the appellate Court was not required to come to the appellant’s aid and assistance in collecting defence evidence at his behest. The presumptions under the NI Act, while rebuttable, work in favour of the complainant. As a result, it is up to the accused to rebut such presumptions by presenting appropriate defence evidence, and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused in gathering evidence on his behalf. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

2 Feb

The High Court erred in analysing the evidence and restoring the application of the writ petition: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #evidence, #judgment, #law, #SupremeCourt, #writpetiton

Case title: J.N Puri Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Case no.: SLP(Civil.) No(s). 24776 of 2020

Decided on: 29.01.2024

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

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal stems from a decision by the high court’s divisional bench on the issue of the respondents’ acquisition of his land in 1987. The appellant claims that he is still in possession of the land. The writ petition was dismissed for a lack of prosecution.

The appellant filed an application for the restoration of the writ petition. It appears that the aforementioned restoration application was not pursued for an extended period of time, prompting the appellant to file yet another Writ Petition in 1999, this time requesting that the restoration application be pursued and an appropriate order issued. The high court has once again denied the restoration petition.

However, after receiving information from the Registry of the High Court of Uttarakhand under the RTI Act that the appellant’s writ petition had been dismissed on default on February 26, 1992, the appellant filed a recalling and restoration application, along with an application seeking condonation for the delay in filing the above recalling application, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Furthermore, a review application was filed against the above order, which was also dismissed.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

According to the counsel for the appellant, the application for restoration was filed on March 23, 1992, which is one month after the writ petition for non-prosecution was dismissed.

They drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, which admits the factum of filing the application dated March 23, 1992, seeking restoration to its original number.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court held that the High Court of Uttarakhand erred in stating that the application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated February 26, 1992, was filed seven years later after taking into account all of the available evidence.

According to the State of Uttar Pradesh’s counter-affidavit, paragraph 5, the restoration application was submitted within a month. No one ever gave the application a fair hearing.

The case has been brought back before the High Court of Uttarakhand, which will restore the appellant’s writ petition and expeditiously decide the case on its merits after providing all parties with a chance to be heard.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read Judgement

17 Nov

One Can Not Be Punished Unless The Crime Is Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: High Court of Lucknow

Prime Legal

Blog #evidence, #JUSTICE, #law, #Law report, #rape

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. – 2899 of 2003

Coram: Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra & Hon’ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi

Decided on: 08.11.2023

Introduction:

The present appeals have been filed on behalf of accused-appellants- Arvind Kumar, Surjeet, and Babloo, who have been convicted by judgment and order dated 30.05.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. First, Jalaun in Session Trial No.77 of 2000 (State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.337 of 1999, under Sections 376(2)(g) and 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kuthond, District- Jalaun and sentenced the appellants to 10 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 376(2)(g) and life imprisonment & fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

Facts:

The F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 30.11.1999 at 19:45 P.M., under Section 376/302 I.P.C. against Surjeet, Arvind Kumar, Babloo, and Raj Kishore on the written information alleging therein that on 30.11.1999, the 13-year-old daughter of informant had gone to collect the grass with Ram Prasad, Babu, and Pramod Kumar. At about 5 P.M., the informant came near the Arhar field of Brij Bhushan Tiwari to collect the grass cut by his father where he heard the screams of his daughter from the Arhar field.

On hearing the screams, the informant, his father, Babu, and Pramod Kumar entered the Arhar field. They saw Surjeet, Arvind, Babloo and Raj Kishore were strangulating her daughter by tying her neck with a bed-sheet. On exhortation, the accused ran away. When the informant reached near the victim, she had died. The accused have also committed sexual assault on her because her private part was bleeding and semen spots were present on the clothes. On hearing the noise, several villagers came to the spot. The informant leaving his family members and other villagers beside the dead body, came to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.

The informant P.W.-1, in his examination-in-chief has stated that Surjeet, Babloo, Arvind Kumar, and Raj Kishore who live in his village Panditpur, sexually assaulted her 13-year-old daughter and committed her murder. The incident occurred in the Arhar field of Brij Bhushan Tiwari.

Babu P.W.-2 has not supported the prosecution case. The witness has stated that he knows the daughter of the informant and the accused. The daughter of the informant is not alive. He does not know what incident had occurred with her and how she died. Witness has denied that accused persons sexually assaulted the victim and committed her murder. The witness has been declared hostile. Witness in his cross-examination by the defence has stated that Munni Devi, the wife of Raj Bahadur has died on the date of the incident. Her last rites were performed at about 4 P.M. Babloo, Arvind and Surjeet were present in the last rites of Munni Devi.

Another evidence produced by the prosecution is recovery of slipper of right foot of accused Raj Kishore, on his pointing out from the field of Brij Bhushan Tiwari. According to prosecution the other slipper of the left foot, however, was found on the spot by the Investigating Officer during spot inspection.

Court’s Analysis Judgement:

From the analysis of evidence on record, it is clear that the sole testimony of informant P.W.-1, who is a chance witness, is not inspiring and trustworthy. There are serious discrepancies, which makes it highly doubtful that he has seen the occurrence. No doubt that the victim has been sexually assaulted and was strangled to death but it is not proved that appellants accused are the real culprits and they have committed the offence. Their false implication on the basis of suspicion or with ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. There is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

The learned trial Court had failed to notice the serious discrepancies in the ocular testimony of informant P.W.-1, who is also a chance witness and has erred in relying on it. The finding of guilt returned by the trial Court on the basis of his testimony is not sustainable.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

23 Aug

Prima-facie evidence of the current applicant’s involvement in the pertinent offence, calls for a thorough investigation.: Gujarat High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #evidence, #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE: Sanjaysinh Batuksinh Vaghela Versus State of Gujara

Decided On-: August 17, 2023

4329 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Nizar S Desai

INTRODUCTION-

The applicant – accused has asked for anticipatory bail in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 409 of the Penal Code, 1860, in the current application under Section 43 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the FIR filed by the first informant Sahdevbhai Karsanbhai Dhodu (Patel), he has stated that he operates his business in the Dhangadhra Marketing Yard under the name Krishna Trading. From the farmers, they bought the agricultural products and sold them to Radheshyam Trading. Owner of Radheshyam Trading is the current applicant. According to the FIR, from 2.6.2023 to 29.6.2023, the first informant supplied Til worth Rs. 5,58,27,219/- through various transactions, and on the instruction of the aforementioned Radheshyam Trading, the aforementioned agricultural produce was supplied to various firms. The present applicant promised that payment for the aforementioned agricultural products that were supplied to the present applicant would be made within a fifteen-day window. However, the current applicant only paid the first Rs. 75,00,000 through RTGS and did not pay the remaining Rs. 4,83,27,219 in two installments of Rs. 50,00,000 and Rs. 25,00,000 each. When the applicant demanded the aforementioned sum from co-accused Dhawal Dilipbhai, who is in charge of running the said Radheshyam Trading, he made a commitment to pay the money to the first informant within one to two days, but he never did so and stopped responding to the first informant. Vice Chairman of the APMC was eventually involved, and a meeting took place.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The first informant has set the criminal machinery in motion which may affect the reputation of the present applicant in society and that for no reason for a civil dispute he will have to face the interrogation and the investigation for which his arrest and custodial interrogation is not required

Knowledgeable APP Mr. Manan Maheta for the respondent and knowledgeable advocate Mr. Rohan Shah for the original complainant State vehemently objected to this application Both learned APP and learned advocate Mr. Rohan Shah for the complainant submitted that the present applicant has transferred a sizeable amount of Rs. 50,00,000 and Rs. 25,00,000 by way of RTGS transaction in favour of the first informant to refute the claim of the present applicant that there were no business transactions between the parties and the present applicant is not remotely connected in respect of any of the business transactions with the first informant.

Noted from the police documents and the affidavit of the I.O. presented before the trial Court that the firm of the present applicant had received more than Rs. 18,00,00,000/- in June 2023 from SRSS Agro Private Limited, Samakhiyani and more than Rs. 4,00,00,000/- between 23.5.2023 and 6.6.2023 from Tirupati Enterprise, Hirapar, Taluk

After looking over the file, I discovered that Section 409 was later added to the amount for which the FIR was initially filed under Sections 406 and 42. I also took into account the fact that the present applicant transferred a total of Rs. 75,000 into the first informant’s account, which would go against the contention of learned attorney Mr. Kishan Chakwawala that the present applicant never had any business ties to the first informant. In the current case, there is prima-facie evidence that the current applicant actively participated in the relevant offence, necessitating, in this Court’s opinion, a thorough investigation.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgment

1 2 3