Tag: #conviction

-Report by Utkarsh Kamal

In the present case supreme court discusses the conviction when the trails court records are absent and can not be obtained. White discussing the present case by the division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol observed that the job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on the lower Court’s judgment to uphold the conviction but, based on the record available before it duly called from the Trial Court and the arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion thereon…Had there been properly preserved records of the Trial Court, the issue in the present appeal as to whether the High Court could uphold a conviction having not perused the complete Trial Court record, would not have arisen they also talk about the digitalisation of the court for smoothening the judicial process.

Facts of the case:

The prosecution has been successful in proving that accused J.K Rode being working at the post of a   Public   Servant as   Assistant   Commercial Manager,   Northern   Railway,   Lucknow made a 2 demand of   Rupees   Five   Hundred from   Chief Ticket   Inspector   Shri   Jai   Prakash   Narayan Upadhyay on 03.05.95 to dispose of the charge sheet issued against him. He was caught red-handed receiving the bribe on 03.05.95. He received Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred) from said J.P.N Upadhya being posted as a public servant misusing his post as a public servant for his gain in a corrupt and illegal manner.   Thus,   the offence under sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 is proved against the accused and he is liable to be punished for these charges. Accused is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged. The accused should be taken into custody then the accused person moves to the High Court where the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused person.

Legal issue:

1)Whether in the absence of the records of the Court of Trial, the appellate Court could have upheld the conviction and enhanced the quantum of the fine.

2)Whether, given the language employed under Section 385 of CrPC, the present situation constitutes a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian constitution

Related laws:

1)Sec 7 of the Prevention of corruption act: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.—Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

2) Sec 13(1),Sec13(2) of the prevention of the corruption act 

3)SEC.385. of Criminal Procedure code Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily.—(1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard to be given—

(i) to the Appellant or his pleader;

(ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint on this behalf;

(iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint to the complainant;

Appellant’s contention:

On the surface of the record, it is clear that the relevant portions of the record, in particular, could never have been recreated by the relevant District Court. Despite this, the Court sustained the conviction on the basis of the partially reconstructed record, which only contained a few documents, such as the FIR. The knowledgeable attorney for the appellant claims that the law is clear on the matter and that without these records, it is impossible to say that a conviction was obtained on solid evidence and is therefore subject to being overturned.

Respondent’s contention : 

Not every conviction alters a person’s personality forever. A conviction may occasionally have little to no effect on a person’s behaviour and character. Furthermore, even though key evidence was lacking, it would be reasonable to uphold the conviction in particular circumstances. Although 500 rupees may not seem like much, if the evidence leads to a conviction, the accused should still be held accountable for their acts. The absence of an appeal does not necessarily imply that the defendant is innocent or deserves a second chance. Instead, in order to reach a fair and just judgment, the relevant data should be thoroughly analyzed and taken into account

Judgment: 

The Court of Appeal’s responsibility is to reach a decision on the matter “based on the record available to duly called from the Trial Court and the arguments advanced before it,” rather than relying on the lower court’s decision to affirm the conviction. The Court further held that in the absence of a fair legal process, the protection of Article 21 rights includes the freedom from any restrictions thereon. This includes the right of the person filing an appeal to contest the findings of fact made by the trial court, which can only be done when the record is available to the Court of Appeal. We hold that noncompliance with the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which we find to be the case in the instant case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not within prudence to lay down a straightjacket formula.

As a result, the Court overturned the appellant’s conviction.

Court also directed the High Court to the digitization of the lower courts so these kinds of situations could not arise in the future.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3oRvPjS

-Report by Bhavana Bhandari

On 24.03.2023, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea by a prisoner seeking to allow parole granted during the COVID-19 outbreak to be included as a part of his actual term since it was compulsory in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others. Taking reference from an earlier court decision, the bench unanimously decided that the period of parole should be aloof when deciding the term of imprisonment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Anil Kumar, the petitioner, and prisoner, was released on emergency parole as a result of the decision taken by the High-Powered Committee, which was established following the instructions provided by the Supreme Court in SWM (C) No.1/2020. The subsequent directives said that prisoners who had been freed earlier on emergency parole under the High-Powered Committee’s decision should not be ordered to surrender until further orders and not on any application filed by the petitioner or by Section 3(3) of the Haryana Good Behaviour Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, led to the petitioner’s release (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988). Whereupon, the petitioner prayed that the court considers the time of parole as part of his real punishment.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant’s counsel argued that in some states, the term of release on interim parole is directed to be considered against the entire duration of imprisonment of the convict/prisoner. If the petitioner had not been granted temporary parole and had instead served his sentence after a predetermined amount of time, he would have been eligible for remission. Moreover, since the petitioner was discharged on interim parole, his entitlement to request a remission would be further prolonged, which would be against the interests of the petitioner if the period in question is not taken into account when calculating the petitioner’s complete sentence.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel for the State stated that the petitioner was convicted of the charges under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Since then, the Apex Court has maintained the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, in line with the law and the punishment pronounced by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner must serve and complete his full term of life imprisonment.

RELIANCE ON FACTS:

The court relied on the legal guidelines established in its January 5 decision on a petition submitted by Rohan Dhungat, who is now serving a life sentence for the murder of a person. In Rohan Dhungat’s case, the Apex Court had rejected a challenge to a decision made by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on Rule 335 of the Goa Prison Regulations and Section 55 of the Prisoners Act 1894 (Extramural care, control, and employment of inmates), which states that the period of furlough and parole shall be considered as part of the sentence except in case there is a breach committed by the prisoner. However, noting that if the inmates’ request for the parole period to be taken into account when calculating the 14 years of real imprisonment is permitted, any prisoner who may be prominent might receive parole several times because there are no constraints on how many times it can be given. If the prisoners’ application is granted, it could undermine the entire goal and purpose of actual imprisonment.

JUDGEMENT:

The three-judge bench comprising Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol stated that the court had ruled that this time of release must be disregarded when determining the length of real incarceration. To avoid overcrowding, inmates were granted a term of parole during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, this time cannot be added to the prisoner’s real length of imprisonment.
In this instance, the legal issue was whether the Covid leave time of a parolee’s probation may be taken into account when determining the length of the prisoner’s actual sentence. The bench ruled that the petitioner convicted under section 302 (the punishment for murder) must serve the period specified and that the emergency parole term must be subtracted from the sentence; as a result, the court cannot provide relief. While Ms. Ritu Kumar, experienced counsel, addressed the appellant, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj represented the respondents on behalf of the State.

FINAL WORDS:

Therefore, the bench declared in its verdict that the suo-moto decision of parole to be granted to convicts during Covid was exclusively to avoid overcrowding and ensure the general health welfare of the prisoners, and shall not be deemed to be part of their real imprisonment in any manner.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40AKpcU

–Report by Eshna Ray

A legal case involving criminal appeals filed by accused individuals and the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment of the High Court. The appeals challenge the conviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court for various offences, including under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. One of the accused has since died, leading to the abatement of one of the appeals. The State has filed appeals seeking enhancement of punishment, including the imposition of the death penalty.

FACTS:

This is a case of a quadruple murder in which the accused, including Braj Pal Singh, are charged with killing Vijay Pal Singh, his wife, son, and son-in-law while injuring his daughter. The prosecution’s case is based on the complaint made by Braj Pal Singh, who claimed to have found the victims with their necks cut, along with the statements of the two daughters of the deceased, Smt Pinky and Ms Rashmi. According to Smt Pinky, there was enmity between her father and Braj Pal Singh and his family, as well as their neighbour, Mukesh. She also claimed that Mukesh and Braj Pal Singh, along with others, assaulted her family with weapons and killed them. She further stated that Mukesh was ordered to “kill all of them.”

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellants have raised multiple contentions before the appellate court. Firstly, they argue that the sole eyewitness in the case, Smt Pinky, is related to the deceased and has enmity with the appellants, making her an unreliable witness. Secondly, they claim that there is no other evidence to corroborate her testimony. Thirdly, they assert that Smt Pinky did not disclose the names of the assailants at the first instance, which suggests that her testimony has improved over time. Fourthly, they argue that the fact that a dog squad was summoned in the morning indicates that the assailants were unknown and that Smt Pinky did not actually see anyone or recognize them. Fifthly, they contend that the failure to examine Ms Rashmi and Horam, who was present at the place of occurrence, raises questions about the investigation. Sixthly, they claim that Smt Pinky’s statement was not recorded before the Magistrate under section 164 CrPC, which creates doubt. Seventhly, the appellant Ravi argues that Smt Pinky did not take his name before the Investigating Officer, and his name has been mentioned for the first time during the trial as an improvement. Lastly, the amicus appearing for the appellant Mukesh has referred to various discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent-State’s main contention is that the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court are based on thorough scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence on record and do not require any interference. The State argues that the appellants, being close relatives and neighbours of the deceased, committed the ghastly act of brutally murdering four members of the same family and attempting to murder the injured witness Smt Pinky, who lost a couple of fingers of her upper hand in the act of protecting herself.

The State further argues that the appellants committed the murders to gain property and settle their score of enmity. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to them, and the High Court committed an error in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The State contends that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the High Court should be set aside, and that of the Trial Court of the death sentence be restored.

JUDGEMENT: 

In Criminal Appeal Nos. 598-600 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and affirmed their conviction under Sections 302, 396, and 394 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of a reliable witness who was injured during the attack and her statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The witness was fully supported by her testimony, and nothing was elicited during cross-examination that weakened her testimony. The daughters of the deceased did not speak out at the time of the attack but later provided information to the Investigating Officer, leading to the arrest of the accused. The non-examination of certain witnesses and the failure to obtain a statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not affect the conviction. The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed, and their sentence was upheld. The appeals filed by the state for enhancement of the sentence were also dismissed, and the accused were ordered to serve out their sentence.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3IeFEOA

-Report by Pranav Mathur

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the 8th of February 2023, dismissed a criminal appeal against the decision of the Trial Court preferred by two murder convicts in the case of Mansa @ Mansu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court deliberated upon various issues commonly deduced before arriving at a judgment, such as the question of the crime being a homicide, whether the requisite mens rea can be reasonably ascertained, etc., with the help of various decisions of the Apex Court.

FACTS:

The two appellants were on a motorcycle when they arrived at the residence of the deceased. He was sitting on a platform at the house directly in front of his own. The appellant riding pillion fired three shots at the deceased, after which he fell, and eventually died due to excessive bleeding and the shock that accompanies it. The mother of the deceased witnessed the entire ordeal. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead. The appellants were arrested after the passage of some time. The motorcycle and the pistol used were seized from the appellants. Both of them abjured guilt and signified their willingness to take the case to trial.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS:

The primary contention of the appellants was the presence of one sole witness; the mother of the deceased. All the other witnesses to the incident were hearsay. The mother of the deceased was regarded as an interested witness and hence unreliable. The appellants further pointed towards contradictions and omissions present in her statements. Major contradictions arose between her and the medical examiner who conducted the post-mortem related to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. It was further contended that the appellants lacked any real motive to kill the deceased, and hence cannot be said to have committed a crime in its truest legal sense. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satveer and Ors. and Sunil Kundu and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand were some of the judgments relied on by the appellants to strengthen their case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent contended that the Trial Court had correctly relied on the statements of the mother of the deceased when it came to the conviction of the appellants, as they were backed by the FIR and additional medical evidence. Other witnesses have also corroborated her story, proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Cases like Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal was quoted by the respondent.

COURT’S CONTENTIONS AND THE JUDGMENT:

The Court took into consideration whether the crime was homicidal or not. Upon the perusal of medical documents, the details of injuries, the post-mortem report, and other medical evidence, the Court concluded that the death was indeed homicidal. The Court opined that the mother of the deceased, and the other witnesses, including the son and the nephew of the deceased, cannot be considered unmeritorious witnesses due to their closeness with the deceased as their statements corroborated medical evidence. Due to circumstances of the investigation procedure, the recovery of the pistol from one of the appellants could not be proved, as had been observed rightly by the Trial Court itself, however, in the Apex Court case of State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly alias Manikandan and Anr., it was held that the non-seizure of the alleged weapon does not adversely hamper the case of the prosecution.

The appellants took the defence of alibi which could not be corroborated with other Defence Witnesses, affecting the appeal that they had filed, as it could not be ascertained that the appellants weren’t at the scene of the crime at the time when it occurred. The common intention of both the appellants was proved by their cooperation in carrying out the crime.

Based on these considerations, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision of life imprisonment being awarded as punishment for the crime of murder as punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XQacfD

-Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Arun Chauhan v State case convicted the accused of the murder of his wife and his son’s tuition teacher on the account of having an extramarital affair.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted of the murder of Akash. The appellant took the deceased to an under-construction site and stabbed him with a knife. The deceased was the tuition teacher of the appellant’s son and he had a feeling that his wife was having an extramarital affair with the teacher. He murdered the man on 15th November 2014. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine by the trial court in 2019. In this case, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the trial court. The major injuries sustained by the deceased were enough to cause death. The body of the deceased was found later by someone and after verification, he was identified. The appellant was arrested. He was charged under Section 302 IPC i.e., murder. The appellant also murdered his wife but he admitted that crime.

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff’s claim was that there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty of such a heinous crime. He further claimed that there was no existing rivalry between them and his kids used to visit the deceased home to take tuition. The reason given for the murder was vague. It was that the court had made a wrong decision based on insufficient proof and reasons. It was further asked that the appellant should be left free. The plaintiff also killed his wife on the same day and accepted the crime.

Respondent’s Contention:

The State claimed that the chain of events are sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the appellant. The witness gave their testimony and all statements lead to the fact that after suspecting the extramarital relationship the appellant planned to kill both.

Judgement:

The Judges after hearing all the witnesses came to the conclusion that the reason for the murder is clear as the appellant first killed his wife and later that same day the deceased. The evidence was also sufficient as testified by the witnesses. The knife was also recovered and the blood stains on the appellant’s clothes were sufficient to hold him liable. The injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. The murder was hence proved without reasonable doubt. The court refused the challenge and held the appellant guilty of the murder of his wife and the deceased.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3x7vnyM