0

Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Stalking and Intimidation Post-Marriage: Offenses Deemed Personal in Light of Union

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Stalking and Intimidation Post-Marriage: Offenses Deemed Personal in Light of Union

Case title: DASARI SRIKANTH VS STATE OF TELANGANA
Case no.: SLP (Criminal) No(s). 2122 of 2024
Dated on: 14TH May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice SANDEEP MEHTA AND Mr. Justice B.R. GAVAI

FACTS OF THE CASE
This appeal is preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2021 preferred by the appellant, upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’), but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. The accused appellant was tried by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’). Vide judgment dated 9th April, 2021, the trial Court acquitted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter being referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) but at the same time, convicted and sentenced him for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I IPC. the High Court reduced the sentences awarded to the accused appellant to three months on both counts. A pertinent plea has been raised in this appeal that the appellant and the complainant(victim) have married each other on 6th August, 2023 as per the Hindu rites and customs and that the marriage has also been registered in the Office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub Registrar, Kodad, District Suryapet, Telangana. An affidavit of the complainant affirming this fact was placed on record. Accordingly, vide order dated 16th April, 2024, we directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Telangana to verify the fact regarding the marriage of the appellant and the complainant from the concerned police station.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant submitted that is evident from the record, the appellant was initially charged for the offences under Sections 354D and 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with Section 12 of POCSO Act. learned trial Court did not find the offences under the POCSO Act proved and acquitted the accused appellant from the said charges. The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed. the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Ms. Devina Sehgal, learned counsel representing the State has filed a compliance affidavit sworn by the Sub-Inspector of the police station concerned who has verified the fact that the appellant and the complainant have solemnized marriage with each other and the marriage was registered as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the Office of Registrar and Sub Registrar, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana on 23rd, September, 2023. The copy of the marriage certificate is annexed with the said affidavit. the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 354D IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-(in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month)
Section 506 Part I IPC: Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/-(in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days)
Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012: Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2021 preferred by the appellant, upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’), but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appeal is allowed in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
“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 – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Supreme Court Clears Accused of Bigamy Charges Citing Lack of Sufficient Evidence

Blog, Supreme court , ,

Case Title – S. Nitheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela & Anr. 2024 INSC 420

Case Number – CRL. Appeal of 2024 Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 8529 of 2019

Dated on – 15th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of S. Nitheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela & Anr. 2024 INSC 420, the Appellant, herein Accused No.1, Ms. Lumina, was the legally wedded wife of the Respondent No.2, Mr. Reynar Lopez, both married as per the customs of the Christianity religion on the 16th of April, 2007. On the 13th of August, 2010, the Accused No.1 allegedly entered a second marriage with Saneesh, the Accused No.2, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The  other Appellants, herein Accused No.3 (Flory Lopez, Mother), Accused No.4 (Vimal Jacob, Brother), Accused No.5 (S. Nitheen, Friend and witness to marriage), Accused No.6 (P.R. Sreejith, Friend and witness to marriage), Accused No.7 (H. Gireesh, Friend and witness to marriage) are alleged to have had a common intention to commit the offence of bigamy by aiding and abetting the second marriage of the Accused No.1 and the Accused No. 2. On the 28th of May, 2018, the Respondent No. 2 instituted a complaint against the Accused persons under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to which the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Attingal evaluated the evidences and directed the framing of the charges. Being aggrieved by this, the Appellants instituted a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which was duly dismissed on the 26th of October, 2018. The Appellants further instituted a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8108/2018 in the High Court of Kerela, which was also duly rejected on the 3rd of July, 2019. Then a Special Leave Petition was instituted by the Appellant in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the order of the High Court and the subsequent proceedings.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the order of framing charges under the Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Appellants is sustainable lawfully?
Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the Common Intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Whether the Accused No. 3,4, 5, 6 and 7 had prior knowledge of the First Marriage of the Accused No. 1 and the Accused No. 2 and acted with common intention?
Whether the Prosecution Under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Appellants is justified?
Whether the dismissal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the Revision Petition was correct?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intentions
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment of an abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequences and when no express provision is made for its punishment
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife
Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Power of the court to alter charges
Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Evidence for prosecution

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to the bigamy, are not present in the case set up by the Respondent.
Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the Appellants possessed common intention to commit the offence of bigamy, especially, the prosecution has a failure on its part demonstrate any overt act or omission on the part of the Appellants that would indicate their involvement in the alleged bigamous marriage.
The ruling in the Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan was cited and the Appellants asserted that only the spouse involved in the second marriage can be charged under the Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and that the current charges against the Appellant for having a common intention to commit the bigamy do not stand on solid legal grounds and that including them in the charged under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 without sufficient evidence amounts to a gross abuse of the legal process and causes undue harassment.
The Appellants cited that there is no evidence to suggest that the Accused No. 3 and 4 were present at the time of the marriage and that there is no indication that the Accused No. 5,6 and 7 had knowledge of the Accused No.1’s previous marriage.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Accused No. 3 and 4 being the close blood relatives and the Accused No. 5,6 and 7 being the friends as well as the witness to the second marriage of the Accused No.1, were aware of her first marriage with the Respondent No.2, but failed to prevent the second marriage and that this omission indicates their complicity and common intention in committing the offence of bigamy, thereby stating them liable for the prosecution under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w the Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It was asserted that the complaint and the pre-charge evidence sufficiently demonstrated the collusion and common intention of the Appellant in the bigamous marriage. Thus, the prosecution against the Appellants is justifiable and should be proceeded with.
The Respondents, further urged that the contentions made by the Appellants were unfounded and that the orders of the lower courts were correct in rejecting the petition to quash the proceedings and that the need for a full trial to meticulously examining the collusion of the Appellants in the alleged offence.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of S. Nitheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela & Anr. 2024 INSC 420, scrupulously analysed the contentions of both the parties, along with the evidence presented in the case. The court outlined the legal framework pertinent to the case, emphasizing the elements required to establish an offence under the Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealing with the offence of bigamy. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the collusion of the Appellants in the bigamous marriage or their common intention to commit the offence of bigamy. The court highlighted the deficiencies in the charges framed against the Appellants and the lack of evidences supporting their prosecution under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court determined that allowing the proceedings against the Appellants to continue would amount to gross illegality and an abuse of the process of the court. The court, consequently, quashed the orders passed by the High Court and set aside all the proceedings against the Appellant in the Criminal Case No. 791/2013. However, it directed that the trial of the Accused No. 1 and 2 would continue as per the charges against them. The court made no orders as to the costs and disposal of any pending applications in the case.  

“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

Inference of Consent Cannot be Drawn from Absence of Injuries: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction in Decades-Old Gang Rape Case

Blog , , , , , ,

Inference of Consent Cannot be Drawn from Absence of Injuries: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction in Decades-Old Gang Rape Case 

Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh & Ors  

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2567 OF 2024 

Dated: May 15,2024 

Quorum:  Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the case revolve around the offence punishable under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (commonly referred to as “the IPC”), the respondents in the criminal proceedings have been found guilty by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shimla by the contested judgement and order in March 2017. Both of them received harsh sentences of three years in prison and a Rs. fifty thousand fine. Should they fail to pay the fee, they would be subject to a severe six-month prison sentence. Paying the prosecutrix with the fine amount, if deposited, was mandated.  

The Trial Court cleared the accused on the grounds that the accused’s defense—that the sexual encounters were consensual—could not be disregarded in the lack of supporting evidence of a struggle on the prosecutrix’s part or supporting harm to the accused’s person.  

An appeal was filed against the acquittal verdict by the appellant, the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Sessions Court’s decision was overturned by the High Court’s order of March 28, 2008, and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Court with the instruction that the accused be tried for the crime of gang rape. 

Due to the death of one of the defendants, Anil, the case was tried against only five people following the remand decision. Both the accused and the prosecution accepted their cross-examination and the evidence that had been recorded prior to remand. Through its ruling and decree dated September 24, 2008, the Sessions Court once more issued an acquittal decree.  

The High Court intervened in an appeal that the State had favoured by issuing the contested judgement and order. It changed the accused’s acquittal into a conviction for the crime covered by Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.  

Criminal Appeal No. 2567 of 2024 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State is upset about the portion of the challenged judgement that reduced the accused’s sentence to three years in prison, which is less than the ten-year minimum stipulated by Section 376(2). This provision was in effect on the day the alleged offence was committed.  

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 375 of the IPC- Rape. An individual is considered to have committed “rape” if he: inserts, to any extent, any object or part of the body—that is, anything other than the penis—into a woman’s vagina, urethra, or anus, or forces her to do so with him or another person; or manipulates any part of the woman’s body in such a way as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus, or any other part of her body. 
  • Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC- Punishment for rape. If someone is a police officer and commits rapes a woman in their care or the care of a police officer subordinate to them, or if they are a public servant and commit rapes a woman in their care or the care of a public servant subordinate to them, those areas are off limits for police officers. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:  

The learned counsel for the appellant/State argues that on remand, the Sessions Court’s decision was deemed erroneous by the state’s knowledgeable attorney. He argued that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that the sexual encounter was conducted with her permission after reading the prosecutrix’s testimony. According to him, the Trial Court’s method of handling a case involving gang rape of this magnitude was totally inappropriate. 

He argued that there was no justification for the High Court to exercise clemency and spare the accused from punishment that fell short of the mandatory minimum period. He argued that the State’s appeal should be granted in order to impose a minimum mandated punishment. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The learned counsel for the respondents argued that two verdicts of acquittal in favour of the accused were made using the same evidence. He argued that the High Court did not turn the acquittal into a conviction in the appeal against the initial decision of acquittal and instead issued an order of remand. He admitted that the High Court’s decision said that the prosecutrix was older than sixteen on the date the alleged offence occurred.  

It was also further argued that consensual sexual relations with a lady who was above sixteen was not illegal, according to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, as it was in effect on the relevant date. He urged us to look at the conclusion made in the High Court’s contested decision. According to his submission, the prosecutrix voluntarily followed accused Vijay, who was seated next to her in the video parlour where the prosecutrix was watching a movie. This was the ruling made by the High Court.  

According to his submission, the prosecutrix voluntarily followed accused Vijay, who was seated next to her in the video parlour where the prosecutrix was watching a movie. This was the ruling made by the High Court.  

He drew attention to the fact that the High Court had decided that the prosecutrix knew the accused Vijay and that he had expressed interest in getting married to her. He stated that even according to the prosecutrix’s case, she had moved ahead of the accused Vijay and arrived at a town bridge. 

He said that following careful review of the available evidence, the Sessions Court cleared the accused on two separate times. He emphasised that subsequent to the remand, the Sessions Court determined that the prosecutrix’s testimony included discrepancies and that she had made changes.  

Furthermore, the idea that they had sex without her consent is refuted by her actions on the day of the incident. He argued that the mere fact that a different conclusion could be drawn from the same evidence did not warrant the intervention of the High Court.  

 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court reviewed of the challenged decision reveals that, after taking based on the evidence, the High Court has determined that the it has been proven that the accused is guilty. The High Court claims that this finding was the only one that could have been documented based on the documented evidence. 

Prior to examining the evidence, it is important to highlight that accused Vijay claimed, in his statement made pursuant to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (also known as “the Cr.PC.”), that he had an intimate relationship with the prosecutrix for a year. This claim is documented in paragraph 12 of the Sessions Court’s judgement, which was made following remand. For that, she had been collecting money.  

According to sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Cr. PC, the court noted that the conviction cannot be based only on the statements provided by the accused. It is necessary to take into account the accused’s remarks in tandem with the prosecution’s proof. When an accused person bears the burden of proof under a statute, the statements might be more significant. An accused person can always prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence when the law requires them to bear the burden of proof. However, the court may undoubtedly take into account the accused’s Section 313 declaration when determining whether or not he has met his burden of proof.  

The court held that Vijay was accused of being occupying the chair close to her. She said accused Vijay advised her to take a bath at a specific location. But she refused to do that. She was informed by accused Vijay that he would like to marry her. The two stepped out of the camera booth and was led to a Manali bridge.where they made her wait. A car driven by a Gipsy was brought. Accused Munna (the fugitive accused) and Ravi. The prosecution before being driven to Solang Nullah and instructed to sit in the car. The when the car came to a stop, accused Vijay brought her close to the Nullah. A massive rock was present. According to her, Vijay was there and possessed her, and engaged in forced sexual relations. 

The judge inquired The High Court’s learned judges were aware that the case they were handling included an incident that occurred 28 years ago and that, in the meanwhile, the accused and their families had made progress in life. Consequently, the High Court believed that the exercise of authority under the proviso was justified by sufficient grounds. Nearly 35 years after the incident, an augmentation in sentence is not warranted under the circumstances of this case.  

As a result, the court dismissed both the State’s and the accused Vijay’s appeals as without merit. With the possible exception of the accused Vijay, others might have received a three-year term.  

According to the ruling dated May 7, 2018, accused Vijay was granted bail in his appeal. He has not served the three-year sentence. He cannot be given any further mercy, given the seriousness of the offence. As a result, Vijay, the accused, must serve out the remainder of his sentence. 

 

“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.

0

The Delhi High Court Upholds Victim’s Testimony Quoting it as “Ring of Truth” in Sexual Assault Case: Cited Reason as Lack of Evidence to Rebut the Statutory Presumptions

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , ,

Case Title – Miss P & Ors. Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Case Number – CRL. A. 459/2020

Dated on – 14th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Miss P & Ors. Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., the Accused (the Respondent herein) and his wife (PW-3) worked as a security guard. They had a daughter (victim herein) and a son (PW-4). The victim reported in the police station concerning her father repeatedly assaulting her sexually for quite some time. The victim claimed that one day, when the accused was jobless, he did not allow her to go to school. Since her mother worked outside and her brother was away for school, during the noon hour, when she was alone at home with him. The accused made her sleep alongside him. The accused then touched her private parts and when she resisted, he rebuked her. Further, the accused sexually assaulted the victim and the victim divulged about the incident to PW-3. When PW-3 confronted the accused regarding the alleged incident, the accused scolded the PW-3 as well as the victim. The victim unveiled that she has been getting assaulted sexually for the last two years and the accused assaulted her lastly on the 4th of January, 2013. The victim was sent for medical examination and documents concerning her age was collected and the statements of the victim and PW-4 was recorder under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Accused was, thus, arrested based on the FIR lodged by the victim, chargesheet was instituted and the accused was sent for trial. The accused was duly charged for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused claimed the trial pleading not guilty under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. The Learned Trial Court while acquitting the Accused, held that the story of the prosecution did not inspire confidence and was not credible.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the delay in reporting the sexual assault to the authorities is considered fatal to the case of the prosecution, given the explanation of the threats by the Accused to the victim?
Whether the sole testimony of the victim, if found credible, cogent, and unambiguous, is sufficient to convict the Respondent without the need for additional corroboration?
Whether the testimonies of the Victim, PW-3 and PW-4 are consistent and corroborate each other sufficiently, despite any minor discrepancies or contradictions?
Whether minor discrepancies or contradictions identified by the Trial Court in the testimonies are material enough to render the case of the prosecution unbelievable?
Whether the accusations were fabricated due to the matrimonial discord, with the victim being tutored by her mother to falsely implicate the Respondent?
Whether the fact of the victim being a minor at the time of the alleged assault impacts the credibility and handling of her testimony?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Recording of confessions and statements
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Power to examine the accused
Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes that the Accused person to be competent witness
Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Meaning Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Offences
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Punishment Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Offences
Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Presumption as to certain offences
Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the Presumption of culpable mental state
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Rape
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for criminal intimidation

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and gave undue weight to trivial contradictions and discrepancies and that the testimonies of the victim, PW-3 and PW-4 corroborate each other without inherent discrepancies or contradictions which would arise suspicion.
Further it was contented that the Accused threatened to kill the victim in case of any disclosure of the matter of sexual assault done by the Accused on the Victim, causing the delay in institution of the FIR and that it is justified by the fear instilled in the victim by the Accused.
Moreover, it was contented that according to the legal precedents, conviction can be rested solely on the testimony of a sexual assault victim if it is credible, cogent and unambiguous and that the testimony of the victim is considered credible and does not require corroboration, specifically since the assault occurred within the four walls of the house.
At last, it was contented that there is no plausible reason for a school going girl to falsely accuse her father of such grave offence and that the minor conflicts between the parents of the victim are not sufficient reasons for the victim to fabricate such severe accusations.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Trial Court thoroughly analysed the evidences and rightfully concluded that there were significant contradictions, which undermine the case of the prosecution and that the case is fabricated due to the matrimonial discord, with the wife using the daughter to wrongfully implicate the Respondent.
Further it was contented that the delay in reporting was not explained adequately, raising doubts about the veracity of the accusations and that the testimonies of the victim, PW-3 and PW-4 are asserted to lack credibility due to unexplained material contradictions and inconsistencies.
Moreover, the respondent contented that the victim was tutored to make fake accusations as a tool in the marital discord between the Respondent and his wife.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Miss P & Ors. Vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., the court noted that the Victim testified about the sexual assault incident by the accused detailing specific acts and threats used to silence her and that the victim provided a consistent account of these assaults continuing almost daily for two years. The court stated that the victim has been consistent across her initial statement to the police as well as the magistrate and the minor inconsistencies and discrepancies are considered trivial and do not undermine the overall credibility of her account. The court also noted that the testimonies provided by the PW-3 and the PW-4 corroborated the account of the victim especially regarding the incident on the night of 18th January, 2013 and the abusive behaviour of the accused. The court stated that the observation of the Trial Court was deemed inconsequential and did not undermine the substance of the accusation. The court also cited several precedents where the Supreme Court emphasized the reliability of the testimony of the victim in the cases concerning sexual assault and highlighted that minor contradictions should not discredit the account of the victim if it inherently seems truthful. The court stated that the burden of rebutting the presumptions in the POCSO Act lies on the accused which must be done beyond any reasonable doubt. The court reassessed the testimonies and found them credible and consistent despite the minor discrepancies and acknowledged the corroborative evidences such as the medical examination reports. The court further acknowledged that the delay in reporting the sexual assault is common due to the societal pressures and fear of stigmas. The court thus upheld the case of the prosecution stating that the testimony of the victim was credible and that the defense failed to furnish any substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions.

“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

Supreme Court Affirms High Court’s Judgment Sentencing Appellant to Life Imprisonment in Murder Case

Uncategorized , , , , , ,

Supreme Court Affirms High Court’s Judgment Sentencing Appellant to Life Imprisonment in Murder Case 

Case Name: Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi 

Case No.: Criminal Appeal NO(S). 55 OF 2015 

Dated: May 07, 2024 

Quorum: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

Usha and the accused appellant were married, and their three children were born outside of the union. But after the couple were involved in a marital dispute, the appellant moved away from his wife Usha and settled in his hamlet of Khatta, Uttar Pradesh. 

On May 20, 1990, the PCR sent a wireless communication to the police station personnel in Bhajan Pura informing them of an event that had occurred outside the stores in Rori and Badarpur. Following up on the aforementioned information, a few constables arrived at the residence where Usha w/o Sukhpal was discovered dead on a cot in one of the rooms.  

After a quick examination, it was discovered that the deceased Usha had cuts, scrapes, and other wound marks on her neck, mouth, shoulder, and private areas that were connected to bleeding. Additionally, dragging marks below the knee were discovered on the right leg. Tablet strips were discovered strewn all over the cot the deceased person was resting on. Authorities claiming to have found a handwritten letter (Exhibit PW-12/E) from the scene of the crime that contained a recital proving the writer was Usha’s murderer.  

It was revealed that Sukhpal had been hired by M/s. R.P. Associates, where Ashok Kumar Pathak was employed. Suspecting that his wife Usha was unfaithful, which frequently resulted in arguments between them, Sukhpal moved away from his wife and kids to live in the village of Khatta, Uttar Pradesh. In the past, he commuted from the village to work.  

Sukhpal had visited Usha four days before the alleged incident, and Sudha, Usha’s sister, had also visited that day. After arguing with Usha, Sukhpal left. The three of Usha’s children were taken by her sister Sudha to her home the following day. Days before the incident, on May 19, 1990, Ashok Kumar Pathak noticed that Sukhpal had stopped by Usha on his cycle in the evening after he had returned from duty and eaten. This was around 9.30 p.m.  

He proceeded to sleep on the terrace, but as it began to rain, he came downstairs and discovered that Sukhpal and Usha had also entered their chamber. When he noticed Sukhpal’s bicycle parked in the courtyard the following morning, on May 20, 1990, he assumed that he and Usha were inside the home and went about his normal business. 

In a judgement dated January 7, 2010, the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused appellant, concluding that the confession note he wrote demonstrated his involvement in the crime. The prosecution had proven that the accused appellant had been with the deceased Usha at her home on the intervening night of May 19 and 20, 1990, when she was murdered.  

Through an appeal by special leave, the accused appellant has contested the foregoing judgement upholding his conviction and punishment. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 299 of CrPC- Record of evidence in absence of accused. In the event that it is established that an accused individual has escaped and that there is no imminent possibility of apprehending him, the court having jurisdiction to try or commit the accused person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, question any witnesses called by the prosecution and record their depositions. Any such depositions may be used against the accused person in the investigation or trial for the offence for which he is charged if the deponent is deceased, incapable of testifying, missing, or whose presence cannot be obtained without a level of delay, expense, or inconvenience that would be unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.  
  • Section 313 CrPC- Power to examine the accused. During any investigation or trial, the following procedures may be utilised by the court to give the accused the opportunity to directly address any circumstances that may be raised in the evidence against him: (a) the court may ask the accused any questions at any time without giving him advance notice, regardless of the circumstances. 
  • Section 302 IPC- Punishment for Murder. Those who commit murder will be punished with life in prison or the death penalty, as well as a fine. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

When the trial court and the high court decided that complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak was questioned under oath during procedures conducted in accordance with Section 299 CrPC, they both made major factual errors. The statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak that the trial court and the High Court relied upon is actually the statement of the said witness recorded by the SHO, PS Bhajan Pura under Section 161 CrPC, which was proved by the Investigating Officer (PW13) in proceedings under Section 299 CrP, according to learned counsel, who states that this finding is completely at odds with the record. 

It was also vehemently argued that the prosecution failed to make any effort to obtain the two admitted documents—Sanjiv Jain’s employer—from the accused appellant, which means that the confession note (Exhibit PW-12/E) is a fake piece of evidence. This claim was made in opposition to the argument that the act of gathering these 

Additionally, it was argued that Sudha’s (PW-10) proof be disregarded because it is completely untrustworthy and unreliable. The prosecution acknowledged that the accused appellant and Usha were no longer together, hence it is completely implausible that the accused appellant visited and remained with Usha just a few days before to the occurrence, as reported by Sudha (PW-10). He argued that Sudha’s (PW-10) testimony was unreliable and ought to be rejected. 

The prosecution’s assertion that the accused appellant was fleeing is completely baseless, since the FIR made it abundantly evident that the accused appellant had moved back to his village in Khatta, Uttar Pradesh, following his divorce from dead Usha. But the investigating officer (PW-13) did not even attempt to track down the accused appellant in his hamlet. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:  

The learned counsel of the respondent the state fiercely and angrily disagreed with the arguments put out by the appellant’s knowledgeable counsel, arguing that the entire chain of circumstances accusing the accused points solely and completely to his guilt. 

Additionally, it was contended that Ashok Kumar Pathak’s statement, which was recorded as PW-1 during proceedings under Section 299 CrPC, was appropriately accepted as credible and admissible evidence. Ashok Kumar Pathak was apprehended by the accused appellant, thus the witness could not be questioned during a regular trial. This was not a purposeful conduct on the part of the prosecution. Despite their best efforts, the prosecution agency was unable to locate the witness. The main justification for not questioning Ashok Kumar Pathak is the accused’s protracted disappearance. 

It was further argued that The accused appellant used to fight with Usha, believing her to be unfaithful, and there were frequent fights between the couples, according to Sudha, Usha’s sister (PW-10), who testified. Four days before the incident, they had gotten into a disagreement. This also proves the motivation for the offence that the appellant is said to have had. 

It was pleaded with the court to reject the appeal, arguing that the prosecution had established the case against the accused appellant through a strong and convincing chain of circumstantial evidence. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The motive, last seen, confession, and disappearance from the crime scene after the crime were all discussed by witness Ashok Kumar Pathak (PW-1) in his statement dated July 17, 1991, which was recorded on sworn affirmation during the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. The court carefully examined these circumstances. It should be noted that Ashok Kumar Pathak had no reason at all to falsely accuse the accused appellant of killing Usha.  

the court took into account It was undisputed that Usha had died by homicidal means. Usha had been manually strangled, and asphyxia was the cause of death, according to the medical jurist’s unequivocal testimony. So, it is not necessary to go into great depth about the medical data.  

Unquestionable proof of the numerous actions made by the investigating officer (PW-13) to gather evidence during the investigation to connect the accused appellant with Usha’s murder was provided by him. The testimony of Ashok Kumar Pathak unequivocally establishes that the accused appellant was present with Usha on the evening before the murder.  

Consequently, the court did not hesitate to uphold the positions of the trial court and the high court when they found the accused appellant guilty of killing Usha and to affirm that decision.  

 

“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.

 

1 2 3 … 9