Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manish Pitale, J., acquitted the appellant-husband who was convicted by the trial court Section 498-A and other sections of IPC.

The appellant was married to the deceased and within one year of marriage she set herself on fire and committed suicide. It was alleged that the appellant and other co-accused demanded Rs 20,000 from her for treatment of appellant’s father. The trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted the co-accused.

The High Court observed, inter alia, that there were no separate or specific allegations made against the appellant. The trial court had found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove that case against the co-accused persons but the same evidence, the appellant was convicted. Moreover, the said demand of Rs 20,000 for treatment of his father such as to bring it under cruelty mentioned in Section 498-A IPC. In such circumstances, the High Court was of the view that conviction of the appellant, even when the co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, was liable to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him. [Balaji v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1955, dated 02-08-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: N.V. Ramana, J., delivered the judgment for himself and S. Abdul Nazeer, J., dismissing the appeal filed against the decision of Patna High Court affirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court.

The appellant along with other co-accused was convicted under Section 396 IPC. Allegations against them were that they committed dacoity in the house of Kamdeo Singh and assaulting his family members while committing the act. One Kameshwar Singh, father-in-law of Kamdeo, succumbed to such injuries. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court was affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved thus, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

The Supreme Court heard the parties and perused the record. The appellant had contended, inter alia, that there was no test identification parade which vitiated the prosecution case. Rejecting the contention, the Court, observed that test identification parade is not a substantive evidence. Its purpose is only to help the investigating agency ascertain as to whether the investigation in the case is heading in the right direction or not. There is no provision in CrPC which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confer a right on the accused to claim a test identification parade. Absence to hold it would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. For such and other reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict-appellant. The impugned order was upheld. [Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar,2018 SCC OnLine SC 778, decided on 02-08-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Navin Sinha, J. delivered the judgment for the Full Court comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, JJ. and himself, wherein the appeal filed by a murder convict against his conviction was partly allowed.

The appellant was convicted for murdering his neighbor. The facts were that the appellant had an altercation with the deceased due to loud playing of tape recorder. The appellant was irked by the loud noise. A verbal argument ensued. The appellant rushed across to his house, came back with a sword and delivered a single blow to the deceased in the rib cage area and then ran away threatening to see him later. The deceased succumbed to the injury the same day. The trial court acquitted the appellant but he was convicted by the Uttaranchal High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

The Supreme Court considered the factual matrix of the case and held that in the entirety of the evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 was liable to be modified. The Court reached a conclusion that the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment. It was noted that genesis of the occurrence was a single assault. Moreover, duration of the entire episode was less than 2 minutes, which lends credence to the view that the assault was made without pre-meditation at the spur of time. Thus, it was not safe to convict the appellant for murder. However, he had knowledge that such assault was likely to cause death. In such circumstances, the Court was of the view that the conviction of the appellant was liable to be modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II. The appeal was, thus, partly allowed. [Deepak v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine SC 770, decided on 01-08-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhushan Barowalia, J., allowed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985.

The case against the appellant was that while the police was on patrol duty, the appellant saw the police and started to run. He was apprehended by the police. The appellant was carrying a bag which was searched and it was found that the appellant was carrying charas. Thereafter, the person of the appellant was searched by the police personnel without informing him about his right under Section 50 to get searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He was tried by the trial court and convicted under the section mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand, (2014) 5 SCC 345, wherein it was laid down that compliance with the condition of Section 50 NDPS Act, was a mandatory provision. The purpose of the section is to inform the person to be searched about his right to get searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, in the present case, there was no compliance with the mandatory provision. The High Court was of the view that such failure on part of the police, vitiated the case against the appellant due to not following the procedure laid by the law. In such circumstances, the High Court held that the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside. [Joginder Singh v. State of H.P.,  2018 SCC OnLine HP 836, dated 03-07-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ. reversed the decision of the Gujarat High Court which had acquitted the accused of the charges under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The accused were working in the Non-Agriculture Department. The complainant was a businessman who wanted to start a new firm. Permission for non-agricultural use of the land was sought from the Department. The accused were alleged to have demanded bribe for expediting the process. Rs 500 were paid to the Accused 1 through Accused 2, who was caught red-handed in the trap laid by the ACB. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them accordingly. However, on appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused holding that the case was not proved against the accused. Aggrieved by this decision, the State preferred the instant appeal.

At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that to prove the offence of bribe, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was sine qua non. On the facts of the case, the Court found that statements of PWs 1 and 2 along with the recovery of bribe amount after following proper procedure by the ACB, proved the case against the accused. Further, it was observed that the presumption against the accused under Section 20 is a rebuttable one and the degree of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. However, in the present case, the accused were not able to give any explanation to rebut that presumption. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court ought not to interfere with the decision of the trial court that suffered from no infirmity. Hence, the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court was set aside and that of the trial court was reaffirmed. However, considering that the matter was almost 27 years old, the sentence of the accused was reduced from 2 years to 1 year. [State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi,2018 SCC OnLine SC 699, dated 17-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC passed by the trial court.

The appellant was convicted for the murder of the watchman of his housing society. The appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife for refusing to irrigate plants at his home. He was convicted by the order of the trial court, against which present appeal was preferred. Counsel for the appellant prayed for a benefit under Section 84 IPC as the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

The High Court perused the record and found that on an earlier occasion also, the appellant was tried under the same section but was given the benefit of Section 84 by the trial court. Reference was made to Supreme Court decision in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748, to observe that the circumstances of unsoundness of mind before and after the incident is a relevant fact to draw the inference that the appellant was under ailment at the relevant time, when he committed the crime. Appellant also examined his doctor that proved a history of mental illness. Further, immediately after the incident, the appellant was admitted to the hospital for the treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. It was held that the appellant had discharged the burden to show that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident. Hence, the trial court was not right in refusing to grant him benefit under Section 84. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted. [Mohammed Rafiq Shahabuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1461, dated 29-06-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of P.N. Deshmukh and M.G. Giratkar, JJ. allowed an application for quashing an FIR lodged for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

One Rupchand Sirsat, 54, working as Group Secretary in Kherda-Mozari Coop. Society committed suicide and left a suicide note making allegations against the applicant and other MPs and MLAs. The wife of the deceased informed the police, pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered for the offence as mentioned above. The applicants had filed the instant application for quashing of the said FIR.

The High Court, while considering the issue, referred to its previous decisions wherein it was held that for bringing an offence under Section 306, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 on the part of the accused, with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned, is required. Further, in order to convict a person under Section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. However, on the facts of the present case, the Court was of the view that the applicant cannot be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. From the contents of FIR, the Court gathered that the deceased was mentally disturbed due to the death of his son. The concerned death note was written two months prior to the commission of suicide. After writing the said note, the deceased had proceeded on leave. In view of such facts and circumstances, the Court quashed the FIR registered against the applicants. [Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra,  2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1456, dated 04-07-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: R. Banumathi, J. speaking for herself and Ranjan Gogoi, J. dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein the order of the trial court acquitting the appellants from the charges including Section 302 IPC was reversed.

According to the prosecution, the appellants and the deceased/prosecution witnesses were members of different political parties. On a fateful day, the appellants being armed with deadly weapons like sword, knife, motorcycle chain, etc., came to the house of the deceased; attacked him; and the deceased succumbed to injuries. The trial court rejected the evidence of all the witnesses on one count or another and acquitted the appellants. However, on appeal, the High Court reversed the order of the trial court and convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. This judgment was challenged by the appellants.

For adjudicating the matter, the Supreme Court carefully considered the record and discussed the witness evidence in detail. Following points of law are discernible from the discussion of the Hon’ble Court:

  • Witness evidence cannot be disbelieved simply because he did not react in a particular manner, each person reacts in his own way.
  • Relationship with the deceased is not, by itself, a ground for affecting the credibility of a witness.
  • FIR is not an encyclopedia which is expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It is not be rejected unless there are indications of fabrication in the FIR.

Further, on perusal of the record, the Court found that witness evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence and also by the recovery of weapons from the accused. It was observed that on an appeal against the acquittal, the paramount consideration is to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The Court was of the view that High Court correctly held that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly and its findings were perverse; the High Court was right in reversing the order of the trial court. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants was confirmed and the appeals were dismissed. [Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine SC 676, decided on 10-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: While delivering the judgment in a case of alleged rape of a one year and three months old baby girl, Rajiv Sharma, J., for himself and Alok Singh, J. upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused, as awarded by the trial judge.

The appellant, tenant of the informant, was a convict under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. It was alleged that he took away the grand daughter (victim) of the informant (PW 1) on the pretext of buying her biscuits; and when the victim returned, she was crying and blood was oozing out of her private body parts. She was taken to the hospital and FIR was lodged with the police. The appellant was tried for the charges mentioned above. The trial court relying on the FSL report and considering the statements of prosecution witnesses held the appellant guilty and convicted him for the said offences. The appellant challenged the decision of the trial court.

The main ground for the challenge was that no semen was found on the vaginal swab of the victim and hence, the case against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the High Court rejected such contention relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 9 and Parminder v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 2 SCC 592, and observed that even slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and depth of penetration is immaterial. Further, the absence of semen in the vaginal swab and/or non-rupture of hymen does not dislodge a theory of rape. On the facts of present case, the Court held that though no semen was detected in the pathology report, yet the nature of injuries as shown by the FSL report and proved by the witness-medical expert; statement of PW 1 that found corroboration in the statement of PW 2 (mother of the victim), were sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused. Holding thus, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. [Dal Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand,2018 SCC OnLine Utt 612, decided on 01-06-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal filed against the conviction of the appellants by the trial court under Section 307 IPC, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Arvind Singh Chandel, J., altered the conviction from Section 307 to Section 308 IPC.

The appellants were alleged to have assaulted the complainant by causing head injury to him. It was alleged that they had an enmity with the complainant and therefore on the day of the incident, they assaulted him with a danda. The appellants were charged under Section 307 IPC for an attempt to murder. The appellants challenged the decision of the trial court.

The High Court on considering the record found that the enmity between the parties arose out of certain money dispute. The Court found that the assault was made in the crowd. It was observed that if the intention to make the assault had been to commit murder, the appellants would not have committed the assault in a crowd. Further, as was evident from the medical report, only one grievous injury was caused on the head of the complainant. However, according to the medical expert, the injury was not dangerous to life. Had the intention of making the assault been to commit murder, the appellants would have caused more than one injury. In such circumstances, the intention to cause murder, a necessary ingredient to prove the offence under Section 307, was absent. The Court was of the view that the offence committed would fall under Section 308 (attempt to culpable homicide) since the appellants were aware that such injury could cause the death of the complainant. The appeals were partly allowed and the conviction was altered from Section 307 to Section 308. [Devi Singh v.  State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine Chh 513, dated 18-5-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court, whereby the appellant was convicted of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of M.G. Giratkar, J.

The appellant, who was working in the Office of District Dairy Officer, was accused of taking bribe from the complainant, who was the Chairman of Janta Milk Dairy Society. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), along with the complainant, laid trap and caught the appellant for taking bribe of Rs. 1000. Appellant was charged and convicted by the trial court for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The appellant challenged the said decision.

The High Court perused the record and found that no specific allegation was made that the appellant took the amount of bribe from the accused. The panch witness did not by themselves saw the appellant taking the bribe. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated in the case by his senior officer. Even the complainant stated in his evidence that he filed the complaint with ACB on behest of the said senior officer. The Court observed that burden of proof is not so heavy on the accused as it is on the petitioner. An accused just has to prove a probable defence. In the facts of the instant case, where evidence was not such that could prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the appellant succeeded in putting up a probable defence that he was falsely implicated at the behest of his senior officer. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [Sadashiv v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 983, dated 10-5-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The sentence of the appellant who was convicted for kidnapping and rape, was reduced to the period already undergone by him, by a Single Judge Bench comprising of K.K. Sonawane, J.

The appellant was accused of forcibly taking away the prosecutrix (victim), who was a minor at the time of incident. She was taken away on the pretext of marriage and the appellant had sexual intercourse with her a number of times during that period. The appellant was charged under Section 361 read with Section 363, Sections 366 and 376 IPC. He was convicted by the trial court for the offences charged under. The appellant challenged the order of the trial court.

On considering the record, the High Court found that at the relevant time, the victim was 14 years of age. It was proved by the School Leaving Certificate signed by the Headmaster of the School. The evidence led by the prosecution and the statement of witnesses proved that the appellant kidnapped the victim and therefore committed the offence under Section 361 read with 363 IPC. Further, the fact of the appellant having sexual intercourse with the victim was proved by the medical report. And since the victim was below 16 years of age, therefore, her consent doesn’t count and the appellant was guilty of offences under Sections 366 and 376. However, the facts remained that the victim never raised alarm as to her kidnapping, never informed or tried to contact her family, lived with the appellant as husband and wife, and also that the appellant was a youngster, 24 years old, at the time of commission of the offence. The High Court finally upheld the conviction of the appellant; however, his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him in light of the mitigating circumstances as noted hereinabove. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. [Bapu v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 920, dated 03-05-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304(1) by a Division Bench comprising of Sangeet Lodha and Virendra Kumar Mathur, JJ.

The appellant was accused of causing the death of his wife by setting her ablaze. It was alleged that he used to drink and beat his wife and on the day of the incident he kicked her in the stomach, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. In this appeal, the appellant did not contend the finding of guilt against him, however, he contended that the conviction may be altered from Section 302 to Section 304(1) on the ground that he had no intention to cause the murder of his wife.

The High Court perused the record and found that the appellant was under the influence of intoxication at the time of the incident. The incident took place after a quarrel. The appellant also had a few burn injuries which might have been due to the reason that he tried to save her. The time gap between the incident and the death of the wife was almost one and a half month. Even the post-mortem report suggested that the cause of death of the deceased were multiple. In such facts and circumstances, the Court held that the intention of causing murder could not be attributed to the appellant. Neither the motive was proved. At best, he could be attributed with the knowledge that his act will cause such bodily injury that may cause death which was an element of an offence under Section 304(1) IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was altered as mentioned hereinabove. [Bhagwan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1193, dated 15-5-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Murlidhar and I.S. Mehta, JJ., dismissed an appeal against conviction for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC wherein the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs 5000 each.

The appellants had been found guilty of murdering a youth by inflicting multiple stab injuries. Two of the accused-appellants had been arrested on the basis of statements of the brothers of the deceased PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 whereas, the third accused had surrendered voluntarily and at his instance, the murder weapon was recovered. The FSL report confirmed presence of human blood of the same blood group as the deceased on the murder weapon as well as on the clothes of the two accused-appellants arrested.

The Court found that each link in the chain of circumstance had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and with the complete chain of circumstance so proved pointing unerringly to the guilt of the three appellants and no one else. The Court, unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court or the order on sentence, dismissed the appeals. [Parvesh v. State,  2018 SCC OnLine Del 9055, decided on 17-05-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: An appeal was filed by the appellant against the order of his conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC passed by the trial court. A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court while upholding his conviction.

The appellant was convicted on the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 of IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts of the case, at most a case of causing simple injury was made out, and no offence under the said section could be said to have taken place. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the decision of the trial court was in accordance with law and was not liable to be interfered with.

The Court heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Court found that the appellant inflicted injury on the back of the victim with a deadly weapon (knife) and therefore, looking at all the surrounding facts, the offence under Section 307 was duly proved against the appellant as rightly held by the trial court. However, on the issue of quantum of sentence, the High Court found favour with the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. Considering the fact that the offence took place more than twenty years ago, the Court reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court, to the period of sentence already undergone by him i.e. three and a half years. Hence, the appeal was partly allowed in the above terms. [Nanhu v. State of MP (Now State of Chhattisgarh),  2018 SCC OnLine Chh 408, dated 10-04-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: The Conviction of Accused 1-appellant in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, was upheld by a Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Agrawal and R.C.S. Samant, JJ.

Accused 1 was found guilty of the above-mentioned offences and convicted by the trial court accordingly. The allegation against him was that he along with Accused 2 had murdered the deceased-his uncle, on account of some dispute. According to the prosecution, on enquiry by the villagers regarding whereabouts of the deceased, Accused 1 confessed that he had killed the deceased along with Accused 2 and buried the dead body in his field. Accused 1 denied the allegations and challenged the judgment and order passed by the trial court.

The question before the High Court was whether the accused could have been convicted on basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. The Court perused the record and found that the fact of confession made by Accused 1 was corroborated by other evidence including witness statement, recovery of dead body, recovery of clothes, FSL report, opinion of the medical expert, etc. The Court was of the view that all the incriminating material on record collected by the prosecution against the accused, on being examined and scrutinized proves that the extra-judicial confession made by Accused 1 had evidentiary value to connect him with the crime in question. Further, the evidence of extra-judicial confession was sufficient, in light of the corroboration as mentioned hereinabove, to bring home the guilt of Accused 1.

Consequently, the judgment of the trial court convicting Accused 1 of the abovesaid offences was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. [Meher Singh Dugga v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 364, decided on 24-03-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., decided a criminal petition filed for quashing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the said judgment and order was quashed in light of compromise between the parties.

The case of the petitioner was that subsequent to the passing of the above mentioned judgment, the petitioner had paid the entire amount in question to the complainant, and therefore he prayed that the impugned order should be quashed. The complainant was present before the Court and stated that he had received the entire amount in question and he had no objection if the said order passed against the petitioner is set aside.

The High Court held that it was not powerless in such situations and it had adequate powers not only under Section 397 read with 401 or Section 482 of CrPC, but also under Section 147 of the NI Act to accept the settlement entered into between the parties and quash the proceedings in the case against the accused. It was observed that such power have been conferred to subserve the ends of justice, however, it has to be exercised with circumspection. The Court further held that the present was not a case which could be stricto sensu said to be an offence against the State. Therefore, it was a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put him to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him if the impugned judgment was not set aside. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial court shall be quashed. [Inder Singh v. Sesu, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 272, decided on 23.3.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Ravi Malimath and Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, JJ., decided a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) CrPC, wherein the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the petitioner was set aside in the light of material discrepancies in the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution.

The petitioner was accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The complaint was filed by the father of the deceased wherein it was alleged that the accused- his neighbor, took the deceased with him on the pretext of finding him a job. However, on reaching a certain spot near a canal- the crime scene, the accused pushed the deceased in the canal thus committing murder of the deceased. The prosecution led evidence and examined as many as 22 witnesses. It was submitted that the motive behind the alleged offence was the enmity between both the families. It was also alleged that during investigation, a button of a shirt was recovered at the instance of the accused from the crime scene which was alleged to be that of the deceased. Based on such evidence and submissions, the trial court convicted the accused and passed the sentence accordingly. Aggrieved thus, the accused filed the instant petition.

The High Court perused the entire evidence on record and found that the evidence led on every point, on which conviction of the accused was based; was full of discrepancies. There was no consistency in the statement of witnesses and the unbroken chain of evidence necessary to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt was missing. The Court was of the view that the findings made by the trial court were not based on proper appreciation of evidence and were perverse. The only fact of alleged recovery of the shirt button was not sufficient to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the alleged charges. [Kumara alias Puttabasappa v. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 911 of 2012, dated 17.2.2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench comprising of L.Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, JJ. held that in the absence of conclusive and consistent proof of circumstantial chain of evidence which lead to the only “hypothesis of guilt” against the accused then, only circumstance of last seen cannot be made basis of conviction.

In the case where the accused were charged with rape and murder of the deceased whose severed body was found on the railway track after she was seen in the house of one of the accused persons, the Gauhati High Court held them guilty for causing death in furtherance of common intention, under Section 302/34 and for tampering with evidences, under sec 201 of Penal Code 1860 and awarded life imprisonment for the same. Prosecution relied on blood samples, postmortem certificate and last seen theory to form chain of evidence.

The Court held that there exist no conclusive proof of corroboration of statement of investigation and the blood stains found on murder weapon couldn’t be established. The Court allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of High Court, stating that last seen together cannot be the only ground for holding accused guilty, a connectivity must be established, the circumstance of “last seen together” does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. It further stated that due to the lack of corroborative evidence the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302, 201 read with 34 Penal Code 1860. [Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 622, decided on 23.05.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench of P.C. Ghose and R.F. Nariman, JJ held that any person can be directed to give his finger prints or foot-prints for corroboration of evidence but the same cannot be considered as violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Court however, added that non-compliance of such direction of the Court may lead to adverse inference, nevertheless, the same cannot be entertained as the sole basis of conviction.

In the present case, where a man was accused of killing his father-in-law, mother-in-law, their daughters and a pet dog, the State had appealed against the order of the Allahabad High Court where the co-accused was acquitted on the ground that adverse inference cannot be drawn by the Court on refusal to give specimen palm impression in spite of the order of the Court.

Prosecution had contended that human blood was found on the weapon of murder and clothes of both the accused and since comparison of finger-prints and foot-prints were not clear, the Trial Court directed both the accused to give fresh foot-prints and finger-prints. The counsel appearing for the co-accused contended that drawing adverse inference against the co-accused due to his refusal to give specimen palm impression was not justified as earlier palm impression report came in negative and application moved by the co-accused praying for sending footprints and fingerprints to some other laboratory was rejected by the Trial Court.

Upholding the decision of the High Court, the Court said that the basic foundation of the prosecution had crumbled down in this case by not connecting the co-accused with the incident in question. And when basic foundation in criminal cases is so collapsed, the circumstantial evidence becomes inconsequential. In such circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to hold that a judgment of conviction could be founded on the sole circumstance that recovery of weapon and other articles have been made. [State of U.P. v. Sunil, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 520, decided on 02.05.2017]