Tag: section302

-Report by Nandani Soni

It was held by the Supreme Court of India that the order passed by the High court convicting the accused must be quashed and the appellants must be acquitted.

FACTS

An appeal had been registered against the order passed by the division bench of the High Court. The appellants namely, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari were tried for the offences under sections, 392/149/302/148/323 IPC for having murdered the Managing director of the company in which they were working, named Rupak Kumar Gogoi. Eyewitnesses were examined by the prosecution, who had identified the appellants and the other accused. After the trial, the trial court acquitted 57 of the accused and convicted 13 of them. The present appeal only remained for Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused stated that the appellants were merely office bearers at that time and the labourers gathered while they were talking and attacked. They further submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the appellants had in fact committed the offence, hence the conviction of the accused becomes baseless.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The eye witnesses saw the appellants engaging with the mob and talking to them in their language. Therefore, the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 149 of IPC.

COURT’S DECISION

The court observed that the prosecution failed to gather any concrete evidence for the offences, it was proved that the appellants were merely office bearers at that time and there was hardly any evidence that the appellants even instigated the mob. It was observed:

“If the entire evidence and the deposition of the eye witnesses are scanned, it appears that in fact the appellants were present there as office bearers of the Union. There were some disputes with respect to wages. Even as per the deposition of PW3, on being called, the appellants entered into the office room but soon both of them came out and told the assembled labourers that the Managing Director would distribute their dues and asked them to go to the place where dues were to be distributed. Despite the same, the labourers protested that they would not accept anything other than the full dues and they started shouting…….. in absence of any concrete evidence that the appellants attacked and/or caused any injury to the deceased and/or even the PSO and in absence of any evidence what was uttered by the appellants – accused in their own language and in absence of any evidence that the appellants instigated the labourers – others co-accused, we are of the opinion that the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.”

Therefore, the decisions of the High court and the Trial Court were set aside as far as the appellants were concerned and the punishment for the other accused was confirmed.

-Report by Anas Ali

In the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh versus Nandu @ Nandua, The Supreme Court ruled that if an accused person is found guilty of the offence covered by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), no penalty or punishment may be less than life imprisonment.

FACTS

The Appellant; the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court had reduced the sentence of the accused to what he had already undergone. The accused had been sentenced to life imprisonment when he was convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

It was argued by the appellants that the punishment that could be imposed would be death or imprisonment for life and also a fine, however, it shall not be less than imprisonment for life. Any punishment or sentence that is less than life imprisonment would violate Section 302 of the IPC.

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court has entertained the appeal of the state. The Court gave a decision in the favour of the state and set aside the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was observed

“The punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore, the
minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine. There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC.”

The decision of the trial court was restored and the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.

-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 Rhea Mistry

In Kamal Khudal v. the State of Assam, the supreme court stated that conviction can depend upon a dying declaration after corroborating and checking whether the said dying declaration is true. Even if the dying declaration is not corroborated, the court can move forward with the decision relying on it without any further verification.

Kamal Khudal is a convict, appellant herein, and has appealed to the supreme court to dismiss his punishment. Kamal Khudal and two others were accused of the murder of the deceased, Uttam Datta, and charged with an offense punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.

In the judgment dated 10.06.2010, the two accused, Munna Bhoi and Kamal Khudal were charged with life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and if there is a default in payment of the fine, further punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Bipin Bhoi, the third co-accused was granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted from the punishment.

In that case, on 15th July 2007 at 7 am, the co-accused, Munna Bhoi had come to receive the deceased, Uttam Datta, for paddy plantation adjacent to his liquor local shop. When the deceased had left with the co-accused, the brother of the deceased was present at home. After working in the field for some time, the deceased had tagged along with Munna Bhoi to his liquor shop where there was some commotion detected after going in shop as said by
the locals in its vicinity area.

After a few minutes of commotion, the deceased had come out with burns all over him, and this was witnessed by a local, Hanu Khetrapal. When asked about what had happened, the deceased had told him that the accused had poured hot Lali (the raw material used to make liquor) over him which caused him the burns. The deceased left and later his dead body was found in the drain of Duribam Tea Estate.

The learned counsel of the appellant asserted that the court had made an error in deciding the case. He stated that the judge considered the dying declaration without any corroboration and verification, and said the case is “reliable in legal evidence”. Arguing that as per the rule of prudence, the learned counsel stated the court should rely upon corroboration before relying on the dying declaration. The presence of the brother of the deceased, while the deceased went along with the accused, does not prove anything and cannot be considered as last seen together.

According to the medical reports of the postpartum of the deceased done by Dr. Nirmal Chutia, he examined that the deceased had healthy organs, but burns all over his body. His body has 75% of burns which caused multiple dark ecchymosis on his skin. Ecchymosis means discoloring of the skin resulting from blood underneath. He certified that the marks and injuries were caused after the death of the deceased and that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from chest & skull injuries and skull injuries, including that on the thorax, multiple injuries had been detected.

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court decided the case accepting the dying declaration. The court said

“The law regarding the nature, scope, and value as a piece of evidence of oral and written dying declarations is now fairly well settled by various judicial decisions of this Court. A dying declaration, oral or written, before it could be relied upon, must pass a test of reliability as it is a statement made in the absence of the accused and there is no opportunity for the accused even to put it through the fire of cross-examination to test is genuine or veracity. The court has, therefore, subjected it to close scrutiny. But once the court is satisfied that it is a truthful version as to the circumstances in which the death resulted and the persons causing injuries, the law does not expect that there should be corroboration before it can be relied upon. However, if there are infirmities and the court does not find it safe to base any conclusion on it without some further evidence to support it, the question of corroboration arises.”

The maxim “Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” is put to use here which means that a person does not go to his creator with a lie in his mouth. The court believes that when a man is on the brink of death, the person will not lie.

The SC also stated that the appellant was arrested on 23rd July 2007 when he was supposed to be arrested on the 15th of July 2007. And that the appellant has not revealed what or where he was from the 15th of July to the 23rd of July. This proves that he was absconding. The Supreme court dismissed this appeal stating that there is no reason for them to interfere in the appeal and the judgment made by the High Court stands by.