Tag: evidence

-Report by Mahak Gulbake

The Supreme Court has held it in the case of Dibaker Nunia & Anr. V. The State of Assam that it is important for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts in serious offences.

FACTS

In this case, an F.I.R. had been filed by a person at the Ghungoor Police Outpost on 01st October 1999 at approximately 10 a.m. He alleged that at 12.30 a.m. the day before, as he was coming home, he discovered a man lying in front of the Congress Party election office. According to the informant and based on an electric lamp, he identified the individual on the ground as his younger brother. He returned home and learned from his parents that the appellants(or accused) had attacked the deceased in the evening. The case was investigated and a charge sheet was filed in relation to the offences under section 302/34 IPC. A trial was conducted before the trial court and the accused were convicted. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants and affirmed the judgment as passed by the Sessions Court, Cachar, Silchar, Assam convicting the appellants of an offence under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and awarded the rigorous imprisonment for a lifetime.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

Learned counsel for the appellants argued vehemently that both the Sessions Court and the High Court, in this case, proceeded based on irrelevant considerations and ignored major weaknesses in the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the conviction of the appellants is primarily based on the testimony of the mother and father of the accused, but their statements not only include major contradictions but also contain inbuilt implausibilities. If their statements are considered, it is not a normal activity for any person to return home, eat a meal and sleep after having seen his kid being assaulted by some people. Further, none of the independent witnesses has corroborated the story of the father of the deceased.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the State has addressed properly the impugned judgement and order and has argued that, when the totality of the circumstances is considered, it cannot be said that the statements of the witnesses are completely unreliable and that the concurrent findings based on those statements do not merit interference.

COURT’S DECISION

After the cross-examination of the shreds of evidence, it has been held that it is true that the deceased was violently abused and sustained many injuries to essential organs, but based on the information presented by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were solely responsible for these injuries. In light of the above, it was observed:

“It remains trite that in such a criminal case, the prosecution is expected to prove its case and to substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case1. When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In the present case, the doubts reasonably arising in the matter had been brushed aside by the High Court on the logic that itself remains unacceptable.“

The order of the High Court was set aside and the accused were acquitted.

-Report by Riddhi Ray

It was held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of MUNUWA @ SATISH ETC. V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH that If the prosecution fails to prove its stand without any doubt the accused will be benefitted and will be set free from all the charges of the crime.

FACTS

An appeal had been filed challenging the judgment of Allahabad high court upholding the punishment of life imprisonment and imprisonment for 4 years of the Bareilly sessions court u/s 302, 307 of IPC respectively. The facts are as follows.

On 24th August 1979 around 6:30 p.m. Iqbal bahadur was sitting along with Dr. Asghar (PW-6) in verandah of his office within college campus. Three accused Gullu Rajesh (A1), Vimal Chunnu (A2), and Munuwa Satish (A3) entered the verandah and fired gunshots toward the deceased as well as the deceased’s physician friend (PW-6) and fled away. PW-6 carried the deceased first to the dispensary and then to Aliganj station. At 8:30 p.m. Deceased lodged an FIR u/s 307 of IPC.

After the FIR was registered, he was sent to Bareilly General Hospital by the Head Constable (PW-4) at around 11:00 p.m. PW-6 reached there at 2:00 a.m. on the next day. The statement of the deceased was recorded there by Tehsildar and the magistrate between 11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. And later he passed away on 27th August 1979 at 2:35 a.m. owing to shock and hemorrhage.

The trial court in the judgment dated 31st January 1981 declared the FIR valid and quashed the appellant’s contention. The FIR was considered as the first dying declaration of the deceased against A-2 but the same cannot be applied against A-1 & A-3. The appellants had stated therein that there is an ambiguity in the statements of PW-1 & PW-6 due to intimidation by the accused. Further, the deceased’s statement recording on the 25th is skeptical. However, the trial court discarded these contentions and sentenced the accused u/s 302, 307 & 34 of IPC for life imprisonment & imprisonment for 4 years respectively.

The high court in its judgment rendered the same view as was previously observed by the Trial court. It gave preference to the first declaration made by the deceased over the second one and ambiguity of PW-1 & PW-6 was considered normal as they used to live in the same locality as of accused. During trial A-2 died so, the appeal was concerned with A-1 & A-3.

Appellant’s Contention

Shri Venkita Subramaniam claimed the FIR to be false as it was submitted to the court later than it was supposed to. The place of occurrence and the statement of witnesses PW-1 & PW-6 are suspicious. If the eyewitnesses are discarded then the whole story of prosecution becomes baseless as there’s no strong evidence like the recovery of weapons.

Respondent’s Contention

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi submitted that the Trial Court and the High court’s decisions are based on reliable evidence and eyewitnesses had no interest or enmity towards the appellant so the courts’ decisions are just.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that the cross-examination amplified a lot of ambiguity in the statement of PW-1. The prosecution was not able to produce any weapons or bullet cartridge which is alleged to have been used in such murder. It was observed:

“the prosecution failed to recover blood-stained materials from the place of occurrence, empty cartridges, pellets,
or any other weapon used for commission of the crime, coupled with the contradictions and unnatural conduct of the eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-6, and the inconsistencies in the two dying declarations, we believe that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.”

The decision of the High Court was set aside and the accused were set free from all the charges.

-Report by Aswati Sharma

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Monday in the case of Varsha Garg vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. ruled that Section 311 empowers the trial court to summon witnesses to arrive at a just decision.

The decoding registers, according to the bench of Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, are a pertinent evidence piece to establish the co-relationship between both the accused’s location as well as the cell phone tower. In this case, the appellant is the wife of an advocate who’d been brutally murdered outside his office on November 18, 2015, around 23:30 hrs. An FIR was filed under Section 302 read in conjunction with Section 34 of the IPC.

The CD which was produced during the trial was found to be corrupted hence an application was made to the trial court for the requisition of the copy CD which was available at the police station. An application was preferred for requisition of the said CD but this application was rejected by the trial court.

A Single Judge of the High Court granted the appellant’s petition to challenge the trial court’s order, noting that the CD was a crucial piece of evidence that was provided to all of the accused along with the charge sheet.

This order of the trial court was challenged before the High Court by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC dismissing the second application which has been called into question in these proceedings.

The submission urged by the Counsel of Appellant was that in any event, there was no bar in law to the filing of an application under Section 311 even after the closure of evidence.

The submission which has been urged by Counsel for Respondent is that given the bar contained in Section 301 CrPC, it is not open to the appellant who is the spouse of the deceased to pursue these proceedings.

Issues before the bench were:

While Section 301 limits the right of the private person to participate in criminal proceedings, the Court noted that Section 311 empowers the trial court to summon witnesses in order to reach a just decision. The State filed an application for the summoning of witnesses and production of the decoding register. As a result, Section 301’s prohibition does not apply. The court held in that context:

“―21 …Therefore, a reading of Sections 301 and 311 together keeping in mind a situation like the one on hand, it will have to be stated that the trial Court should have examined whether the invocation of Section 311 was required to arrive at a just decision. In other words even if in the consideration of the trial Court invocation of Section 301(2) was not permissible, the anomalous evidence deposed by PW-18 having been brought to its knowledge should have examined the scope for invoking Section 311 and set right the position. Unfortunately, as stated earlier, the trial Court was in a great hurry in rejecting the appellant‘s application without actually relying on the wide powers conferred on it under Section 311 CrPC for recalling PW-18 and ensuring in what other manner, the grievance expressed by the victim of a serious crime could be remedied. In this context, a reference to some of the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant can be usefully made.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8th April 2022 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 57152 of 2021 as well as the order of the Second Additional Session Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore dated 13th November 2021 in Sessions Trial 227 of 2016 dismissed the application filed by the prosecution. The application was filed by the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers and for the summoning of the witnesses of the cellular.