Tag: #witness

-Report by Harshit Yadav

In the case of Anwar @Bhugra V. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the trial court, which was confirmed by the High Court. The trial court convicted two accused under Section 394 and 397 IPC and the third accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

FACTS:

The complainant purchased and was going back to his village Rana Majra meanwhile he was apprehended by three persons near the cremation ground around 8:00 pm. They asked him to hand over things to them but he only had grocery items. On hearing this, they give him leg blows and fists and took his wristwatch. Seeing a  tractor coming from the side of the village and he cried for help. On seeing this, two persons helped the complainant. Those three men inflicted injury on all these persons. Mahindra Singh a resident of village Balehra came to the spot and apprehended one person who was with a knife. He disclosed his name as Satpal and the other members were Anwar and Bablu. Taking advantage of darkness, Satpal flew from the place. An FIR was lodged by the Complainant. The trial court convicted Anwar and Bablu for a punishment of seven years and ₨ 2000. The High Court also confirmed the decision of the Trial Court.

CONTENTIONS:

Appellant:

The appellant contended that the story built by the prosecution on the basis of the complaint is concocted. Such incident was never has taken place. Recovery of the pistol is in doubt as the memo of personal search after the arrest of the appellant mentioned that nothing was found at that time. The memo of pistol says that the pistol was found when the arrest of the appellant was done. It is contrary to the memo of personal search. The allegation of the purse is also in doubt as nothing such allegation was made in the FIR. Many witnesses were declared hostile.

Respondent:

The counsel from the respondent said that the entire prosecution was duly supported by witnesses. Merely few witnesses were declared hostile, which does not demolish the case. The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by the lower courts and there is no call for interference by this Court.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, the Apex Court held that the recovery and memos of the pistol are highly doubtful as the memo of personal search says that no pistol was found, but the memo of pistol says that it was found in the right pocket of the appellant when he was arrested which was highly doubtful in the view of Apex Court and can demolish the case by this reason only. The medical report of the pistol also suggests that it was never used. Witnesses turning hostile also holds importance, and material witness was not presented by the prosecution. Therefore on these findings by the Apex Court, the Court set aside the impugned judgement of the Trial Court which was confirmed by the High Court. The appeal was allowed thereafter.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41h77af

–Report by Hans Rathi

The High Court of Delhi recently held in the case of TARUN DUTT versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. It stated that an undertrial accused cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The court reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the accused person against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. The Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan presided over the case.

Facts:

An FIR was registered on a complaint of Shri Matadeen Gora, who alleged to have been dishonestly induced on the pretext of receiving the insurance policy bonus amount and the insurance gratuity value on the lapsed insurance policies from the year 2013 till date. He claimed that a group of people had called him from different mobile numbers claiming to be senior officials from the insurance regulatory body. They induced him by stating that the unclaimed insurance amount can be released to the complainant. On the allurement, he deposited a sum of ₹ 80 lakhs and another sum of ₹ 39 lakhs at different times. The chargesheet has already been filed in the present case. It was found that most of the money was transferred to the accounts of accused persons including one main accused herein. In a disclosure statement made by one of the accused, the present applicant was arrested on 14.01.2021. The applicant had joined the other accused persons – Arvind and Sunil, as partners in a fake insurance bonus scam and has cheated innocent victims/persons on the pretext of receiving a huge insurance policy bonus. The applicant is alleged to be the main caller who induced the complainant and impersonated himself as Senior Director of Income Tax and MCA. The co-accused Sunil was admitted on bail by an order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned ASJ and the co-accused Arvind was granted bail by this Court by order dated 28.02.2022, whereas one co-accused person Ratnesh Chauhan is stated to be released on interim bail granted by the learned ASJ by order dated 28.04.2022. The present appeal is filed by the main accused still in custody under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0012/2021 dated 08.01.2021 registered at Vasant Kunj. 

Petitioner’s Contentions 

Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was in the employment of the main accused and has been falsely implicated in the case. 13. He further submits that all the other four co-accused have been already enlarged on bail and despite that the applicant is languishing in jail and his application for grant of bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on an erroneous presumption that the applicant is likely to tinker with the ongoing investigation. In the present case, even though the FIR was registered way back in January 2021 and the chargesheet was filed long back, still even as per the prosecution there is a major part of the investigation which is still in progress. Therefore, the trial is not likely to proceed and will take a long period of time before it gets over. The Applicant is in custody for almost 2 years and has a family to look after, including a six-year-old daughter and an eleven months old son. 15. He further submits that when all the main accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration and he is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Respondent Contentions

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the gravity of the offense and the manner in which the accused persons are found to have cheated the complainant, disentitles the Applicant of any discretion.

Judgment

The court in the present case held that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. The speedy trial in the present case does not seem a possibility. Keeping the applicant in further incarceration would cause deprivation of his right to legal defence. It further reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the applicant against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Therefore, the court directed the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to some terms and conditions.