0

“Supreme Court Revokes Bail: Incarceration Duration Not Sole Basis When Accused Involved in Further Offenses”

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , ,

Case title: Jadunath Singh v. Arvind Kumar & Anr.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) Nos. 7961-7963 of 2023)

Dated on: 19th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE

  • The case revolves around an incident on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where the appellant, Jadunath Singh, filed a written report stating that the accused, Arvind Kumar, had illegally occupied a plot.
  • On the same day, armed with firearms, the accused, along with others, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and his companions, resulting in the death of two individuals and injury to another.
  • The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B.
  • In another case, on January 31, 2013, Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar, while in custody, requested Constable Ajay Kumar to accompany them for a nature break. However, they ambushed Ajay Kumar, fatally shooting him as they left the court premises. Subsequently, they dumped his body outside a residence. This led to the registration of FIR Case Crime No. 60 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC, with eight individuals, including Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar, implicated in a conspiracy to murder Ajay Kumar. Both accused fled but were apprehended by the Special Task Force (STF) in Maharashtra, where they also engaged in gunfire with the police, prompting the filing of a separate FIR Case Crime No. 54 of 2013.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the accused were dangerous criminals, having committed multiple murders including that of a police constable, and their release would endanger the appellant and his family.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents sought bail primarily based on their prolonged incarceration of more than 10 years and the fact that two co-accused had been granted bail earlier.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Sections 147 of IPC, whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Sections 148 of IPC, whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Sections 149 of IPC, every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Sections 120B of IPC, punishment of criminal conspiracy.

Sections 302 of IPC, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

ISSUE –

  • Whether the respondents, despite their lengthy incarceration, should be granted bail considering their involvement in multiple serious offenses, including murder.
  • Whether the High Court adequately considered all relevant factors before granting bail.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had granted bail primarily based on the duration of incarceration and the bail granted to two co-accused. However, crucial facts regarding the respondents’ involvement in the murder of a police constable and their subsequent resistance to arrest were not presented before the High Court.

The Court emphasized that the respondents’ conduct in a separate case warranted denial of bail despite their prolonged incarceration in the present case. While Arvind Kumar was not implicated in the murder case of the police constable, bail for the other two respondents was revoked.

The appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were allowed, and the impugned order granting them bail was set aside. They were given two weeks to surrender, failing which coercive measures would be taken.

This judgment underscores the importance of considering all relevant facts and circumstances before granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses and individuals with a history of criminal conduct.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click here to view Judgement

0

Landmark Criminal Appeal Decision: Supreme Court Reverses Verdict, Declares Four Guilty in Support of Chhattisgarh State.

Blog , , ,

Case Title – RAVISHANKAR TANDON Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2024 INSC 299)

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No.- 003869-003869 / 2023

Dated on – 10th April 2023.

Quorum – Justice B. R. Gavai


FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the case of RAVISHANKAR TANDON Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2024 INSC 299), an FIR was lodged after the deceased in the case went missing leading to a prompt investigation where the accused No. 1, 2 and 4 were charged with the offence under IPC Sections 302 (Punishment for murder),120B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy) and 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information). Whereas, Accused No. 3 was charged with the offence under IPC Sections 302 and 120B. It was during the police interrogation that the appellant confessed about having a conspiracy to murder the deceased for a sum of Rupees 90,000 by throttling the deceased and disposing off his body in the pond of the village, Bhatgaon. As per the confession of the appellant, the police retrieved the dead body of the deceased from the same pond at village Bhatgaon. Through the postmortem examination it was confirmed that the Accused No. 1, 2 and 4 throttled the deceased to death and shrouded the body of the deceased in a jute sack. During the proceedings, several witnesses testified. The prosecution provided the court with 37 documents as evidence to justify the guilt of the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and opted for the proceedings of the court. It was established by the trial court that the Accused No. 1,2 and 3 were guilty under IPC Sections 302,120B and 201 while Accused No. 4 was guilty of the offence under IPC Sections 302 and 120B. All the accused found guilty were sentenced to an imprisonment for life.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

1. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the prosecution failed to establish any incriminating circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt.

2. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the prosecution failed to establish a chain of proven circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused.

3. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the prosecution failed to prove that the information in the statement of the appellant which led to the discovery of the evidence was unknown to anyone before the appellant provided it during interrogation.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent in the said case contented that both the High Court and Trial Court without any dissent winded up the case stating that the prosecution has successfully proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. The respondent stated that both the trial court and the High Court’s findings are based on a thorough perception of the evidence presented to the court, leading to the conclusion that no interference is necessary.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

1. Section 120B of IPC prescribes the Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy- Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

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

3. 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.

4. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes How much of information received from accused may be proved – Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

ISSUES:

1. The main issue revolved around whether the prosecution possessed adequate evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt or was it just circumstantial evidence?

2. Another issue was whether the validity of the confession gained by the police during the interrogation?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The Supreme Court in the given case scrupulously analysed that the conviction based on circumstantial evidences requires a chain of complete and proper chain of evidences without any presence of reasonable doubt and that the circumstances that lead to the guilt of the accused persons must be established conclusively keeping aside all alternative hypotheses of innocence. The court stated that the evidence does not conclusively proves that the discovery of the dead body was solely based on the statement given by the accused person. The court decided that the judgments given by the High Court and the Trial Court are to be quashed and set aside and that the appellants in the said case are to be exonerated of all charges imposed on them and released.


“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 Judgement

0

“Supreme Court Emphasizes Weakness of Extra Judicial Confession; Acquits Defendant Dharambir in Murder Case”

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Case title: Dharambir @ Dharma v. State of Haryana

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No.1858 of 2009

Order on: 16th April 2024

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

FACTS OF THE CASE

On June 5, 1998, at around 8:30 a.m., the deceased, Karambir, along with his brother Krishan Kumar and others, went to Prabhat Cinema, Bhiwani. At approximately 11:30 a.m., the accused, Dharambir, who was also present there, stabbed Karambir in the chest, resulting in his death. The motive alleged was Dharambir’s suspicion that Karambir was involved in illicit relations with his wife.

Rohtas Singh, the Inspector/SHO of Police Station City Bhiwani, received information about the incident and initiated the investigation. The accused was arrested, and a chargesheet was filed against him under Section 302 IPC.

During the trial, the prosecution primarily relied on the testimonies of Krishan Kumar, the first informant, and Ram Kumar, who claimed an extra-judicial confession by the accused.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Dharambir’s counsel argued that Krishan Kumar’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. They pointed out discrepancies in Krishan Kumar’s account of the events, including the timing of the incident and the seating arrangements at the cinema hall.

Additionally, they highlighted that no blood stains were found on Krishan Kumar, raising doubts about his presence at the crime scene. Regarding the extrajudicial confession, they argued that it lacked credibility as it was contradicted by another witness, Piare Lal.

He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pritinder Singh Alias Lovely v. State of Punjab and contended that an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and since the testimony of the witness, Ram Kumar, before whom the accused allegedly made the extra judicial confession, has been contradicted by evidence of Piare Lal, there cannot be any justification to rely upon his evidence as well.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The State argued that Krishan Kumar’s testimony was trustworthy as he had no reason to falsely implicate Dharambir. They asserted that Ram Kumar’s testimony corroborated Krishan Kumar’s account, strengthening the prosecution’s case. The State contended that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court supported the conviction and should not be overturned.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

IPC Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

ISSUE –

The core issue was the reliability of the prosecution’s key witnesses. The court analyzed the testimonies of Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, finding inconsistencies and improbabilities that cast doubt on their credibility. It noted contradictions in their accounts and lack of corroboration.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The appellant, Dharambir @ Dharma, was acquitted of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Supreme Court of India.

Given the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, especially the unreliable testimonies of the key witnesses, the court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted, and the appeal was allowed.

The court acquitted the appellant, Dharambir @ Dharma, of the murder charge, as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgments of the trial court and the high court were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged from bail.

This judgment underscores the importance of reliable evidence and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click here to View Judgement