9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1575 - SC - Indian LawsCriminal conspiracy involving the appellants (A2 and A4) to abduct and murder the deceased - applicability and scope of legal principles - presumption of innocence - Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - innocent-till- proven-guilty Rule for other criminal offences - Challenged the convictions granted by the Sessions Court - business rivalry with the deceased - HELD THAT - Having considered the matter in extenso including examining the facts and applicable law we are of the clear view that sufficient material is available on record which has come out during the trial giving rise to reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the Appellants in the crime. The Appellants have been able to poke holes in the testimonies of PW1 PW2 and PW7. Our conclusion is only fortified as A1 and A7 have been acquitted and thus the conspiracy angle dehors the said main conspirators who are the masterminds as per the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover no alternative theory qua conspiracy has been even suggested much less proved by the prosecution. Undisputedly the four persons in the car on the fateful date were (1) the deceased; (2) PW1; (3) assailant/shooter who is absconding and (4) A3. In the background of the admitted position that the Appellants were not present at the spot where the crime was committed i.e. in the car nor any direct/specific role in commission of the offence being attributed to them their convictions cannot be upheld. On a deeper and fundamental level when this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution this Court will as a matter of course and of choice in line with judicial discretion Although in the context of bail jurisprudence for a working idea as to what judicial discretion entails peruse the views of a learned Single Judge (sitting as Judge-in-Chambers) of this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT lean in favour of the Defence. We have borne in mind the cardinal principle that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course for certain offences the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the Accused to prove his/her innocence but that does not impact adversely the innocent-till- proven-guilty Rule for other criminal offences. We see no quarrel with the afore-noted statement as the same applies on all fours to our criminal justice system. The presumption of innocence is also a human right per the pronouncement in Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 (4) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT In Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtr 2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT a 3-Judge Bench of this Court at Paragraph 35 had opined that ... Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor. ... Accordingly for reasons aforesaid these appeals stand allowed. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. If any fine(s) pursuant to the orders of the Sessions Court or High Court were deposited by/realised from either Appellant they shall be entitled to refund of the same.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in the appeals were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Existence and Proof of Criminal Conspiracy Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the principle that criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra. The Court also considered the decision in Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala, which held that a conspirator can be held responsible for a crime committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective. Court's interpretation and reasoning: While acknowledging the legal position that conspiracy may be established circumstantially, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. The acquittal of the alleged masterminds (A1 and A7) significantly weakened the prosecution's conspiracy theory. No alternative conspiracy theory was suggested or proved. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to establish the involvement of the main conspirators undermines the case against the appellants. Key evidence and findings: The prosecution alleged rivalry between the deceased and A1 and A7, who were said to have conspired with others including the appellants. However, A1 and A7 were acquitted by the High Court. The appellants were not present in the car at the time of the murder, nor was any direct role attributed to them. No evidence linked the appellants to the conspiracy independently. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and noted that the acquittal of the main conspirators negated the prosecution's foundational case. Without proof of a conspiracy involving the appellants, their conviction under Section 120-B IPC could not be sustained. Treatment of competing arguments: The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was scrutinized, and the Court found that the prosecution had not adequately connected the appellants to the conspiracy. The Court rejected the State's submission that the conspiracy was clearly established based on witness testimony and bank transactions, noting the lack of cogent proof. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the conspiracy charge against the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution's case on this issue was insufficient to uphold the convictions. Issue 2: Direct Involvement of the Appellants in the Murder Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the standard of proof required to establish direct participation in a crime and the importance of credible eyewitness testimony. It also noted the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused where evidence is not conclusive. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the four persons in the car at the time of the murder were the deceased, PW1 (an eyewitness), the assailant/shooter (absconding), and A3 (now deceased). The appellants were not present in the car and no direct role was attributed to them. The Court found that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW7 were inconsistent or lacked credibility in implicating the appellants. Key evidence and findings: PW1's conduct after the murder, including not going to the nearest police station and instead visiting a private residence, was considered suspicious. PW2 failed to identify A4 and admitted to being shown photographs multiple times. PW7's testimony surfaced after six months and contained improbable details, such as hearing multiple crackers despite only two shots being fired. The weapon was not recovered, and no blood-stained clothes were collected from PW1, further casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that reasonable doubt must be actual and substantial, not speculative. The inconsistencies and improbabilities in the witness testimonies created reasonable doubt about the appellants' involvement. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a direct role of the appellants in the murder beyond reasonable doubt. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the prosecution's argument that the appellants were implicated based on circumstantial evidence and witness identifications. It found the evidence insufficient and the witnesses' credibility questionable. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellants were not directly involved in the murder and that the evidence did not support their conviction under Section 302 IPC. Issue 3: Impact of Acquittal of Main Conspirators on the Case Against Appellants Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court noted that the prosecution must prove the entire conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal of key conspirators affects the credibility of the conspiracy charge against others. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The acquittal of A1 and A7, who were alleged masterminds with a clear motive (business rivalry), undermined the prosecution's case. Without their involvement, the conspiracy theory fell apart. The Court found no evidence of any alternative conspiracy involving the appellants. Key evidence and findings: The prosecution failed to prove rivalry or motive against the appellants independently. The acquittal of the main conspirators was a significant factor in the Court's reasoning. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the prosecution's failure to prove the main conspiracy participants' guilt created reasonable doubt about the appellants' involvement. Treatment of competing arguments: The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and bank transactions was insufficient to overcome the acquittal of the masterminds. Conclusions: The Court held that the acquittal of the main conspirators warranted the benefit of doubt to the appellants and negated the conspiracy charge against them. Issue 4: Standard of Proof and Treatment of Reasonable Doubt Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court extensively discussed the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, referencing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Gopal and subsequent cases. It emphasized that reasonable doubt must be actual and substantial, not imaginary or speculative, and that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that when confronted with reasonable doubt, the Court must lean in favor of the accused. It underscored that life and liberty are precious and cannot be lightly interfered with. The Court noted that the prosecution's case had multiple gaps and inconsistencies, which gave rise to reasonable doubt. Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not cogent or consistent and that the witnesses' testimonies had significant infirmities. Application of law to facts: Applying the high standard of proof, the Court found that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the State's argument that circumstantial evidence sufficed to uphold the conviction, emphasizing that the quality and reliability of evidence must meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and their convictions could not be sustained. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence," but such proof must be beyond reasonable doubt and supported by cogent material. Mere circumstantial evidence without the involvement of the main conspirators cannot sustain a conviction. "A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt... Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation... A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense." "When this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will... lean in favour of the Defence." "The presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India." "The acquittal of the main conspirators, who are the masterminds as per the prosecution, negates the conspiracy angle dehors them, and no alternative theory of conspiracy having been proved, the convictions of the appellants cannot be upheld." The Court allowed the appeals, discharged the appellants from liabilities of their bail bonds, and ordered refund of any fines paid pursuant to the Sessions Court or High Court orders.
|
