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.

 

0

In a domestic abuse case, the Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of legislative reforms to safeguard the rights of all parties involved

Blog , , , , , , ,

 Case Name: Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Ors 

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2379 OF 2024 

Dated: May 3, 2024 

Quorum: Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mirsa 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The case concerns the First Informant Tanu Gupta, who is a resident of Hisar, the wife of Achin Gupta and the daughter of Harish Manocha. She is a peace-loving and law-abiding woman, and she married Accused No. 1 in New Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was said that the First Informant suffered physical and psychological harm as a result of the Appellant and his family members’ claimed dowry demands. According to the FIR, the First Informant’s family gave the Appellant and his family her “stridhan” at the time of the marriage and spent a significant amount of money on it.  

But not long after they were married, the First Informant became the target of harassment from the Appellant and his family, who claimed she hadn’t fulfilled her responsibilities as a wife and daughter-in-law and also put pressure on her to pay additional money. According to the allegations, the appellant was a habitual drunkard who would forcefully touch the First Informant and mistreat her.  

The Appellant and his family would retain the First Informant’s full income while she worked as an assistant professor, according to her allegations. Every time the First Informant asked for money, the Appellant would physically attack her and tell her that she should ask her family to cover her personal costs.  

The Appellant is also accused of having an extramarital affair with a different woman, and he threatened to harm the First Informant if she revealed his affair to others. After carrying on with the extramarital affair for a considerable amount of time, the appellant filed for divorce in July 2019 on completely false and unfounded allegations.  

The Appellant is accused of disconnecting the water supply at their married residence and removing their young son in the early days of the Covid-19 lockdown. The First Informant was forced to return to her parents after marrying and was left with no other choice in these circumstances.  

The appellant in this case filed a quashing petition with the High Court in an attempt to have the criminal proceedings halted. In exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (also known as the “Cr.P.C.”), the High Court rejected to quash the criminal proceedings in its judgement and order dated April 5, 2022 (also known as the “impugned order”). Because of the aforementioned, the appellant is presenting the current appeal to this court.  

 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 323 of IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. If someone intentionally causes harm, with the exception of the situations allowed by section 334, they may be penalised with a fine of up to one thousand rupees, one year’s worth of imprisonment of any kind, or both.  
  • Section 406 of IPC: Punishment for criminal breach of trust. If a person violates the law by intentionally betraying another person, they may be sentenced to three years in prison, a fine, or both. 
  • Section 498A of IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Anyone who submits a woman to cruelty while she is her spouse or a family member of her husband faces up to three years in prison as well as a fine. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

The learned counsel for the appellant argues that Both a domestic abuse case and a divorce petition had been filed by the appellant and his family against the First Informant in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The First Informant left her married house more than 11 months ago, and the FIR No. 95 of 2021, dated April 9, 2021, was only filed in response to this when she was served with a summons in the domestic abuse case. Why there has been such a delay has not been explained. 

As per the allegations of the appellants The purpose of filing the FIR was to exact revenge on the appellant, albeit a covert one. For more than a decade, the Appellant and the First Informant were wed. 

The appellant claimed that there were no particular instances of criminal behaviour, only broad, general accusations that formed the basis of the criminal charges. It was a misuse of the court system to file a criminal trial based only on such broad accusations. In an effort to stop the abuse of the legal system in marriage cases, the appellant asked the court for relief.  

The appellant’s specific argument was that the complainant, the second respondent, was uninformed of the events detailed in the First Information Report (FIR).The appellant made it clear that neither the second respondent nor any other parties had filed a civil lawsuit against him. The purpose of this argument was to refute the accuracy of the claims stated in the First Information Report. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

 The learned counsel representing the respondents argued that After the marriage, the appellant and his family insisted on receiving more money as dowry. The First Informant used to get beat up and have her entire income taken away by them. 

They also contended that the appellant had no choice but to leave the married residence and go back to her parents’ house in Hisar after the divorce petition was filed because she was no longer receiving any maintenance payments and had disconnected essential utilities like the water supply. 

It was also contended that With a different woman, the appellant had an affair. She remained silent and didn’t let the others know about it, only wanting to keep the marriage intact. It is utterly baseless and vexatious that a domestic abuse case has been brought against the First Informant. It was not disclosed to this Court by the appellant that he had withdrawn the divorce action he had taken against the First Informant.  

The learned counsel for the state contended that after receiving the first information report, the police opened a fair investigation. After the inquiry was finished, the cases against four of the five suspects were dropped. Nevertheless, considering the claims made, the investigating officer felt it was appropriate to submit a charge sheet against the appellant. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The appellant filed for divorce in July 2019 on the grounds of cruelty, and the court noted this after receiving notice of it. Due to the appellant’s difficulty caring for his child and making the lengthy trip to Hisar on the dates set by the court, the divorce petition was dropped. Under the terms of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the appellant’s mother was required to file a domestic violence complaint against the First Informant in October 2020.  

The court further noted that the First Informant’s claims are quite broad, general, and imprecise, and they do not specifically mention any instances of illegal behaviour, based on a plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet documents.  

The court observed that it was also important to remember that no precise time or date of the alleged incident or offence has been included in the FIR. Even the police decided it was appropriate to end the investigation into the other appellant family members. Consequently, we believe that the First Information Report (FIR) filed by Respondent No. 2 was only a response to the divorce petition and the domestic abuse case. 

The court also noted that The field of investigating an offence was solely reserved for Police Officers, who had unrestricted authority in that regard as long as their investigative powers regarding cognizable offences were lawfully used in strict accordance with Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. In carrying out its duties under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not serve as an appellate or revisional court.  

The inherent jurisdiction under the Section, while broad, should only be used when it is warranted by the strict criteria outlined in the Section itself. It should be used rarely, cautiously, and with prudence. It was to be used ex debito justitiae to carry out substantial and true justice, the administration of which is the exclusive function of courts. The court’s authority is intended to further justice, and should any attempt be made to misuse it in order to bring about injustice, the court has the right to stop it. Allowing any activity to occur that would obstruct the advancement of justice and lead to injustice would be an abuse of the legal system.  

In order to prevent both of the new provisions from going into effect, the court asked the Legislature to investigate the above-highlighted issue, taking into account the practical realities, and consider making the required adjustments in Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The appeal was so granted as a result of its success. It is now decided to set aside the contested decision and order from the High Court.  

In order for the Government of India to present this ruling to the Honourable Ministers of Law and Justice and Home, the court instructed the Registry to deliver one copy of each decision to the Union Law Secretary and Union Home Secretary.  

 

“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.