0

Patna High Court discharges bail bond liability and acquits the accused in a murder case

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Ravindra Singh and others v. State of Bihar

Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 290 of 2017, Cr. Appeal No. 318 of 2017

Dated on: 17 May 2024

Coram: Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR

 FACTS OF THE CASE

Janak Singh, The informant, his son and some people of his village had deposed against Ravindra Singh, the Mukhiya of Sevatar Gram Panchayat regarding alleged irregularities in the Indira Awas scheme to the B.D.O of Mohra Block on 3 September 2004. After inquiry when the B.D.O. went from Riula then on the same day at about 14:00 hours (i) Ravindra Singh; (ii) Deo Nandan Singh; (iii) Prabhanjan Singh; (iv) Tanik Singh; (v) Babloo Singh; (vi) Ashok Singh; and (vii) Umesh Singh armed with weapons encircled the informant and others in the paddy field situated to the west of Devi Asthan with common intention to kill them. Ravindra fired from the rifle in his hand upon Manohar Singh, the son of the informant. The shot first hit his left hand and after piercing the same, it went into the chest. When the informant and his son Mukesh went to save Manohar, then Deo Nandan Singh, Babloo and Prabhanjan Singh assaulted them by the butt of rifle and gun causing injury on head. The informant was assaulted by Tanik Singh, Ashok Singh and Umesh Singh on his left hand by butt of gun. The informant had become unconscious whereafter he was brought to Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College and Hospital on the same day and during treatment, Manohar Singh died. An FIR was filed and after investination  charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After examining the evidences available on the record and upon consideration of the submissions of the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned trial court held the appellants to be guilty of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

ISSUES

  • Whether the delay in giving the fardbeyan (First Information Report) affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
  • Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused under Section 302/34 IPC (murder with common intention) without establishing the necessary elements of common intention and participation in the crime.
  • Whether the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses impact the reliability of their testimonies.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 302 of the Indian penal Code (IPC):

Section 302 of IPC deals with the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

This section pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

This section states that every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offense committed in the prosecution of a common object. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

This section pertains to the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959:

This section pertains to the punishment for using arms, etc. It states that whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants contended that there was a significant delay in providing the F.I.R., raising doubts about the prosecution’s case. The appellants contended that the prosecution witness’s assertions were consistently contradictory, making their testimony untrustworthy. Furthermore, the prosecution did not call any independent witnesses to testify, even though there were hundreds of persons at the scene. There is insufficient supporting evidence to back up the prosecution’s case, as indicated by the absence of an independent witness. The appellants proposed that this false claim may have sprung from past familial animosity between them. At last, the appellants contested the trial court’s decision that the prosecution could not establish a shared intention between them. As a result, the appellant claimed that the trial court’s decision was unfair.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents argued that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to the injuries inflicted upon them made them unconscious and as soon as the injured witness gained consciousness, they filed the FIR and thus lodging the FIR did not necessarily imply that the case was false. The prosecution emphasized that the evidence of injured witnesses, such as Janak Kishore Singh (PW-3) and Mukesh Kumar (PW-4), has greater evidentiary value unless compelling reasons exist there, their statements cannot be discarded lightly. They argued that the prosecution has been able to establish the genesis and the manner of occurrence through these witnesses. The prosecution sought to corroborate the evidence of the injured witnesses by pointing out that the Doctor (PW-5) found charring margin injuries on the deceased, which supported the prosecution’s case that Ravindra Singh fired a single shot from a distance of 4 feet. They also highlighted that the evidence of Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha (PW-5) and Dr. Asim Mishra (PW-7) corroborated the single entry wound with no exit injury, which further strengthened the prosecution’s case. They cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vadivelu Thevar and Another versus State of Madras, which held that the court should convict if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. In all the prosecution contended that minor inconsistencies do not affect the consequences as all the witnesses corroborated the evidence of time and place.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The high court found the delay in giving the FIR to be significant. It was of the view that the delay was not satisfactorily explained as the prosecution said that the injured witness had become unconscious but the court found that even though there were other witnesses present no one else could Lodge an FIR neither were any independent witness examined which raised reasonable suspicion. The court observed substantial contradiction in the statements of  the main injured witnesses due to their inimical relationship with the accused and other witnesses as well which made their statements unreliable. The High Court also found no conclusive evidence of common intention among the accused to convict them under Section 302/34 IPC. The Court cited previous judgments, including Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor, Mamand v. Emperor, Fazoo Khan v. Jatoo Khan, and Kripal v. State of U.P., to emphasize the necessity of proving common intention for conviction under Section 34 IPC. The high court after assessing the medical witnesses came to a view that the prosecution also failed to prove that the injuries caused to them was only though rifles and guns. This lack of conclusive proof further weakened the prosecution case. The high court henceforth set aside the convictions of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act due to the failure to establish their presence at the scene and the absence of proof of common intention. The Court also set aside the convictions of Tanik Singh and Umesh Singh under Section 325/34 IPC and of Deo Nandan Singh, Babloo Singh, and Prabhanjan Singh under Section 323 IPC. The High Court allowed the appeals, discharging the appellants from their bail bond liabilities and overturning the trial court’s judgment.

“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 – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement

0
hc patna

Patna High Court: reviews the order passed by the lower court filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Blog , ,

CASE TITTLE: Shibjee Pd. Singh @ Shivjee Singh V Manju Devi and ors

CASE NO: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1023 of 2017

ORDER ON: 15-01-2024

QUORUM: JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The said  petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th of April, 2017, passed by learned Sub Judge, Madhepura in Title Suit No. 93 of 2002, by which learned Sub Judge dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for amendment of written statement of the petitioner/defendant.

The fact leading to the present case is that, the case, as it appears from the records, is that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st filled a suit, in which defendant no.1/petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. The basis of the suit of the plaintiffs was an agreement of sale dated 5th of March, 1999, which was denied by the defendant no.1/petitioner. It was submitted by the petitioner that while he was being examined as defendant’s witness on 9th of May, 2016, during his cross examination, learned counsel for the plaintiffs put before him an agreement to sale in question and the defendant no.1/petitioner came to know that this document was different from the stamp paper on which he put his signature and gave it to his brother/defendant no.2, which was for sale of 10 Kathas of land only. Since the agreement to sale, put up before him during cross examination, was different from the document that he has executed earlier, the defendant no.1/petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for amendment of his written statement. A rejoinder to this application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and learned Subordinate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application of defendant no.1/petitioner. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Order VI Rule 1 of the C.P.C, deals with pleadings in genral “Pleading”, shall mean plaint or written statement. Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner through their counsel submits that in order to decide the real question of dispute between the parties and if the Court feels that amendment is necessary, amendment can be allowed at any stage. If the amendment is not allowed, it will cause irreparable harm to defendant no.1/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that learned Trial Court did not consider the fact that defendant no.1 filed his written statement submitting that he did not make any agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiffs for sale of the disputed land. It was defendant no.2 who made the agreement of sale with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs asked him to take signature of defendant no.1, as he was one of the share holders in the ancestral land and on saying of defendant no.2 that he wanted money as he was in need of it, so defendant no.2 wanted to sell his share of 10 kathas of land and for this reason, defendant no.1 put his signature on the agreement to sale on first page only. The said agreement to sale was made with defendant no.2 and not with the plaintiffs. For this reason, defendant no.1 denied the agreement to sale between defendant no.1 and plaintiffs and when the agreement to sale in question was put up before him, the defendant no.1 wanted to clarify the facts and wanted to bring the amendment in his written statement on record. The counsel further contended that the aforesaid facts were not considered by learned Subordinate Court.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on Having perused the records, especially the impugned order, on finding no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order or improper exercise of jurisdiction. The court further observed that, It is on record that the amendment petition was moved after fifteen years when the evidence of the parties, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have been completed and the matter was at the stage of argument. Further, the court observed that the said amendment was made only on the ground that defendants were asked certain questions and some documents were put up before him for his response then only he has moved before the Court for amendment of the written statement, the court further opined that  If certain document has come during the evidence being recorded for the defendants and the defendants are confronted with the same, it does not give right to the defendants to amend their pleadings in order to fill up the lacunae in his case. Moreover, the amendment has been moved at quite belated stage and proviso to Order VI Rule 1 clearly bars such amendment after commencement of trial and when no due diligence has been shown. Therefore the court, In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on not finding any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same being  affirmed. Accordingly, the court dismissed the instant petition.

“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.”

Click here to view judgement

Judgement reviewed by:Sowmya.R

0

Patna High Court Upholds Lower Court’s Dismissal of Public Interest Litigation filed against nominations made by district judge

Blog , ,

Case title:  The Sikh Collective Vs The State of Bihar

Case no.:  800 of 2024

Dated on: 16th February 2024

Quorum:  HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The writ petition is filed against the nomination made by the District Judge, Patna to the Prabandhak Committee, which is managing the affairs of Sri Takhat Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, Patna City. The writ petition is filed as a public interest petition. The petitioner is a Sikh Collective (Sikh) which is not stated to be registered as a society or association and in that circumstance it cannot be deemed to be a legal entity. Further, the respondents impleaded are the three nominees and none from the community even in a representative capacity.

ISSUES

  • Whether the applicant has locus standi to file the petition before this court?
  • Whether the court can invoke the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 226 of The Indian Constitution

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs: Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The petitioner contends that the District Judge, Patna ought not to have made the three nominations before the election is over, since it is de hors and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws governing the formation of the Committee and would lead to frustrating the democratic process of election of the committee members. The petitioners are concerned with the management of the religious place and it cannot be said that the community which has interest in the affairs of the institution and also the management of the same is either marginalized or downtrodden, requiring this Court to invoke the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the other remedies available.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The counsel contended that the Constitution and Bye-laws are produced at Annexure-1. The nomination made by the District Judge is in his ex officio capacity. Nomination is made under Clause 9 of Chapter IV and there are 15 members in the Managing Committee of which 14 are nominated by the various bodies; three being nominated by the District Judge. Three members are elected by the local Sikhs of Patna district and the remaining member is co-opted by the 14 members constituting the committee. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is nothing mandating the nomination to be done after the election. Further, none of the other existing committee members have been impleaded in the present writ petition.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court did not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the District Judge, in a Public Interest Litigation and to invoke and exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in public interest, in the above case; the grievance projected in which has to be agitated in an appropriate civil forum. Declining discretionary exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court dismissed the writ petition. The court also made it clear that it has merely declined discretion and it does not validate the nomination which, if any individual or body is prejudiced with, will have to be agitated before the appropriate civil forum. When such proceedings are instituted, it would be for the forum approached to decide on the locus standi of the applicant and maintainability of such a proceeding; and if found inclined on these aspects, to decide on the merits.

“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 – Fathima Sara Sulaiman

Click here to view judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

High Court Patna, quashes the order of trial court in Pursuant to the Recommendation of the IVth Pay Revision Committee, issued by the Finance Department,Govt.Of Bihar

Blog , ,

CASE TITTLE: BIKRAMA SINGH And Others V THE STATE OF BIHAR  And Others

CASE NO: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3455 of 2012

ORDER ON:16-04-2024

QUORUM: JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present writ application has been filed for Quashing the order dated 26.12.2011 Under the signature of the Chief Engineer, Central Design and Research, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar,The facts leading to the present petition in question is that, The petitioners were initially appointed as Correspondence clerk in the Irrigation Department. Pursuant to the Recommendation of the IVth Pay Revision Committee,issued by the Finance Department, Govt. Of Bihar by which the time bound Promotion scheme was introduced. Thereafter, the State Govt. Issued an order making certain amendments for grant of time bound promotion. By this Amendment. It provides That promotion in the selection made shall be made by passing The accounts examination by a clerk. Clause 9 of the amended Rules provides that the passing Of accounts examination was made a condition precedent for Time bound as well as selection grade promotion, Only change brought about by This Resolution was that the promotion under the senior Selection grade scale is to be granted on completion of 12 years Of service but the earlier structure of junior selection grade scale Remained the same.Again the pay scale at the pattern of Central Pay Scale was revised by the State Govt. issued by the Finance Department, Govt. Of Bihar. By this resolution, the Govt. Has Decided that until and unless the new policy decision is Determined by the Govt., the promotion of the employees who Are in the scale of junior selection grade/senior selection Grade/super time selection grade shall be made against need Based post. the petitioner No.1 has been granted Promotion in the Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade Scale and he has also been Granted the revised Pay Scale in light of Finance Department Resolution.Petitioner No.2 was granted Junior Selection Grade Scale and Senor Selection Grade Scale by office order and he has been granted promotion as Head Clerk.The petitioner No.1 has already passed the accounts Examination  and the petitioner No.2 also and the case of the petitioners and others in the Central Design Organization was considered by the Chief Engineer and at the time of consideration, there were only three Posts of Head Assistant the Department has granted promotion On the first post to one Raj Ballabh Ram against the need based Post of Head Clerk and against the post of Head Assistant Earlier one Jawahar Lal has filed writ application claiming Therein that he was senior to the petitioner No.1 on the basis of Date of appointment in service cadre and accordingly he was Promoted to the post of Head Clerk but he has been reverted to The post of clerk. The Hon’ble Court  has directed the Chief Engineer to consider the grievance of the petitioner, the case of Jawahar Lal Was considered by the Department and he was placed just above The petitioner No.1 and due to that third post of Head Assistant On which the petitioner No.1 was promoted earlier was occupied By Jawahar Lal then the petitioner No.1 has filed a Representation before the Chief Engineer stating therein that he Has been granted promotion as Head Assistant in light of the Clarification made by the Finance Department, Govt. Of Bihar And he has requested that he should be promoted as Head Assistant.Thereafter, one Ram Shankar Singh has also filed a Writ application with a prayer That the petitioner No.1 is junior to him and he has been granted promotion as Head Clerk from 01.01.1996 so Ram Shankar Singh may also be granted the promotion as Head Clerk this Hon’ble Court has directed the Chief Engineer to consider the request of the petitioner (Ram Shankar Singh) in accordance with law and. By the impugned order as contained the date of promotion of the petitioner No.1 has been shifted from  as Head Clerk and petitioner No.2 as Head Clerk and Sri Jawahar Lal has been promoted as Head Clerk hence this petition.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:

The counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuing the present impugned order no notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and present impugned order has been passed is in clear violation of principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. In the aforesaid, the scale of the petitioner has been enhanced not on account of any misrepresentation made on behalf of the petitioner. Further, The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in AIR 2015,Further the counsel contented that  petitioner No.1 has been retired from the service w.e.f. 31.01.2010 and petitioner No.2 has also been retired from the service on 31.03.2008 and the order impugned was passed after the retirement of the petitioners i.e. on 26.12.2011.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Learned counsel for therespondent submits that earlier the seniority of clerk cadre was maintained by the Parent Department i.e. Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna later on it is directed to maintain seniority of Muffasil Cadre maintenance on the basis of their respective first joining in this case and as per direction, the first provisional gradation list was notified for the muffasil cadre by inviting representation against any discrepancies. Petitioner No.1 was given Jr. Selection Grade and Sr. Selection Crade on the basis of passing the Accounts Examination .the counsel further contended that  By order of the Finance Department the compulsion of passing the accounts examination was relaxed to those employee who have been promoted or their promotion due before 01.09.1983. Some of the employees moved before this Hon’ble Court by which they were challenged their position in gradation list and effective date of marking for Head Clerk and Head Assistant. Both the writ petitioners were heard and respective order was passed by this Hon’ble Court and thereafter the respondents were taken steps and the whole case to gradation list prepared  was deeply reviewed in the light of their 1st joining in the cadre as per direction of aforesaid respective orders, by which the compulsion of passing the accounts examination was relaxed to the employee who has been promoted or their promotion due before 01.09.1983. After review the whole matter the entire previous gradation list was rearranged by canceling all previous orders issued vide different letters and dates, the petitioner No.1 was placed on gradation 43(ka) and marked for head clerk and the petitioner No.2 was placed on Gradation 22 and marked for Head Clerk Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners filed a fresh writ petition bearing for quashing the Office order and the same was disposed of  with the certain direction, The answering respondents fixed the date for hearing and also the Department informed to the petitioners to ensure their presence on fixed date. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondents after considering all facts, the Chief Engineer, Central Design and Research, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna passed a reasoned order after clarifying all the points which is impugned in the present writ petition and observed that the office order will be effects and the counsel further contended that there is no illegalities or irregularities in the present case.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The Court Having heard the parties and have gone through the material available on the record,finds that the respondents have not levelled any allegation against the petitioners herein that they have misrepresented or committed fraud for the purpose of wrong fixation of pay, grant of grand pay, in fact the respondents have conceded that wrong pay fixation was done on account of their mistake and according to the principle of law settled in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra) no recovery can be affected from the petitioners , the court further observed that, since they have already attained the age of superannuation prior to passing of the order recovery and secondly since there have been no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioners leading to wrong pay fixation/wrong grant of grade pay though the respondent authorities are precluded from making any recovery from the petitioners. This Court further is of the view that the present case of squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra) especially since the petitioners have already superannuated and secondly it is mistake of the respondents admittedly, which is excess payment to the petitioners herein on account of wrong fixation of pay. Court opined it  is left with no option in the facts and circumstances of the present case but to quash the order dated 26.12.2011 and directed the respondent authorities to act accordingly and pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed.

“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: Sowmya.R

click here to view judgement

0

Judgement in 30 minutes: SC Dismisses Trial Judge’s Appeal Against Patna HC’s Observation Against Him For Conducting Hasty Trial.

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,
  1. CASE TITLE – Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & ANR.

CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal No. 3924 of 2023 & Criminal Appeal Nos. 3926 – 3927 of 2023

DATED ON – 17.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice S.V.N Bhatti

FACTS OF THE CASE

An FIR was registered in Crime No. 137 of 2021 for the occurrence that took place on 01.12.2021. The said complaint was filed by the mother of the victim on 02.12.2021. Accordingly, the case was registered under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC, 1860”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act, 2012”). The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the accused took advantage of a minor girl child and committed the offence of rape. The accused was arrested on 12.12.2021. He was produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate on 13.12.2021 and remanded to judicial custody till 24.12.2021. On 12.01.2022, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences aforestated. The accused was produced through video conferencing on 15.01.2022. There was no advocate representing the accused, and the case was put up on 24.01.2022 for his production. On 20.01.2022, without the FSL report, the charge-sheet filed was taken on record. The prosecutor was directed to ensure the presence of the accused through video conferencing. The accused feigned his inability to engage a lawyer as he was behind bars. The case was adjourned to 22.01.2022 for framing of charges and for the supply of documents. On that day i.e. 22.01.2022, the counsel appearing for the accused was provided with the documents, without being given any time and without ensuring that these documents were in fact shown to the accused, followed by due consultation with his lawyer, directly arguments were heard on framing of charges. Thereafter, the charges were framed and explained to the accused through the virtual mode. On the very same date, an order was passed for summoning the prosecution witnesses. Strangely enough, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer to record the evidence of four witnesses in a single day, as a confidential information obtained, indicated that there was pressure from the family members of the accused. No notice was served either on the accused or his counsel, and the order was passed, without taking into consideration the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. In disregard of the provisions of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After two days i.e. 24.01.2022, the remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, were examined. There was no material to show that the accused was present at that point of time. To question under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973 alone, the accused was brought through video conferencing. The repeated plea of adjournment by one week made by the counsel for the defence was once again rejected, while ultimately facilitating a day’s adjournment.

Two days thereafter i.e. 27.01.2022, the case was posted for sentencing. Upon hearing the accused, the death sentence was imposed by the trial court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, called for the records and went through them thoroughly, finding that there is non-compliance of Sections 207, 226, 227 and 230 of the CrPC, 1973, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, and ordered for a de novo trial. Incidentally, the approach adopted by the Trial Court was found faulty. Assailing the impugned judgment on merit, the informant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 3924 of 2023. Aggrieved over the observations made by the High Court, the learned Trial Judge has filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 3926-3927 of 2023.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012, enacted to address child abuse and exploitation.

The Rules for Video Conferencing of Courts, 2020, enacted by India’s Supreme Court, established a framework for conducting court hearings virtually.

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, enacted to shield witnesses from intimidation and threats, ensuring they can testify freely in court.

 

CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT

The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for both the informant and the learned Trial Judge, submitted that the procedure established by law has been followed. The appellant has kept in mind the rigor of Section 309 of the CrPC, 1973 read with the provisions contained under the POCSO Act, 2012. Even assuming that there was a procedural flaw, given the mandate contained under Section 465 of the CrPC, 1973 he argued that there was no need for remittal. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellant has discharged his judicial function and, therefore, any action without hearing him is contrary to law. Though the charges had been dropped, the observations made would be detrimental to his future career progression. The accused had antecedents and, therefore, the Trial Court rightly exercised due caution and mentioned that it was a case where no witness was produced on behalf of the defence.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The Learned Senior counsel appearing for the High Court and the accused submitted that admittedly there were serious procedural violations. Prejudice was sufficiently demonstrated before the court and stated that it would be impossible for a Judge to deliver the judgment within such a short span of time and no opportunity was given at every stage of the trial to the accused. The Learned Senior Counsel further stated that it was a clear case of  “justice hurried is justice buried”. And that there is no question of giving an opportunity to the appellant, the judicial officer, as no action is pending against him.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the High Court, while passing both the impugned judgments, had not only called for the records and rendered findings of fact, but has also considered them in detail. At every stage, the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself and was also of the notion that the appellant judicial officer was obviously acting in utmost haste. They noticed that at every stage, including framing of charges, there was a constant denial of due opportunity and hearing. The accused was not able to consult his lawyer. He was not even served with the copies, though his lawyer received the same before framing of the charges. The held that receiving of documents by his lawyer would not be sufficient compliance, unless there was sufficient time given for him to peruse them and thereafter have a consultation and also noted that neither the provisions of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 have been invoked nor the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 were followed. And also said that regarding the application filed seeking intervention over the action taken on the administrative side, it is for the appellant to approach the High Court. The present appeals were then dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also gave instructions for the Trial Court to go over the case again while keeping in mind the POCSO Act, 2012 while recording the evidence of the victim.

“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 – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

1 2