2018 (5) TMI 1989 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of accused - framing of charges - vicarious liability of the Accused Under Section 149 - It is the grievance of the Appellant that in spite of the gravity of the offence and the evidence of the 5 injured witnesses most of the Accused went scot free without any punishment and hence this appeal - HELD THAT - There is a failure of justice in the case on hand looked at from the point of view of either the victims or even from the point of view of the convicted Accused. The most normal consequence thereafter should have been to order a fresh trial but such a course of action after a lapse of 26 years of the occurrence of the crime in our opinion would not serve any useful purpose because as already indicated some of the Accused have died in the interregnum. We are not sure of the availability of the witnesses at this point of time. Even if all the witnesses are available how safe it would be to record their evidence after a quarter century and place reliance on the same for coming to a gist conclusion regarding the culpability of the Accused? This is a classic illustration of how the State failed in its primary constitutional responsibility of maintaining law and order by its ineffectiveness in the enforcement of criminal law. In our opinion the reasons for such failure are many. Some of them are-(i) inefficiency arising out of either incompetence or lack of proper training in the system of criminal investigation; (ii) corruption or political interference with the investigation of crime; (iii) less than the desirable levels of efficiency of the public prosecutors to correctly advise and guide the investigating agencies contributing to the failure of the proper enforcement of criminal law; and (iv) inadequate efficiency levels of the bar and the members of the Judiciary (an offshoot of the bar) which contributed to the overall decline in the efficiency in the dispensation of criminal justice system - Over a period of time lot of irrelevant and unwarranted considerations have crept into the selection and appointment process of Public Prosecutors all over the country. If in a case like the one on hand where three people were killed and more than five people were injured if charges are not framed in accordance with the mandate of law the blame must be squarely taken by both the bar and the bench. Another distressing feature of the record in this case is the humungous cross examination of the witnesses by the defense which mostly is uncalled for. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Incident and initial investigation.
2. Trial and conviction by the Sessions Court.
3. Appeals and revision petitions.
4. Defects in framing charges.
5. Application of Section 149 IPC.
6. High Court’s judgment.
7. Procedural errors in Sessions Case No. 58/98.
8. Compensation for victims.
9. State’s failure in maintaining law and order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Incident and Initial Investigation:
On 11.07.1992, at about 10.10 pm, an incident occurred in the village of Nana Ankadia leaving 3 persons dead and 5 persons injured. The information about the incident was conveyed by a wireless message to PSI, Mr. NG Rajput, who initiated the investigation by recording statements and drawing panchnamas.

2. Trial and Conviction by the Sessions Court:
A charge-sheet was filed against 15 Accused, and the trial was conducted in Sessions Case No. 118/1992. The Sessions Court convicted A-1, A-5, A-10, and A-12 under various sections of the IPC and BP Act, while acquitting the remaining Accused due to insufficient evidence. A-10 and A-12 were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. A-1 and A-5 received lesser sentences for other offences.

3. Appeals and Revision Petitions:
The convicted Accused appealed against their conviction, while the State and the original complainant filed appeals and revision petitions challenging the acquittal of the other Accused. The High Court dismissed the appeals of A-10 and A-12, partly allowed the appeals of A-1 and A-5, and dismissed the State’s appeals and the revision petition.

4. Defects in Framing Charges:
The Supreme Court noted several defects in the framing of charges by the Sessions Court, including:
- Charges not framed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Omnibus accusations without clear findings regarding the existence of an unlawful assembly.
- Lack of clarity on the participation and identity of the Accused.
- Absence of specific findings on the guilt of the Accused under Section 302 IPC.

5. Application of Section 149 IPC:
The Court emphasized the importance of Section 149 IPC, which declares the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly. The Court criticized the lower courts for not properly applying Section 149 IPC, resulting in the acquittal of many Accused who might have been vicariously liable for the offences committed.

6. High Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to address the defects in the framing of charges and did not adequately analyze the evidence regarding the existence of an unlawful assembly and the common object of the assembly. The High Court’s reasoning in acquitting some Accused was found to be unsatisfactory.

7. Procedural Errors in Sessions Case No. 58/98:
In the separate trial of A-16 and A-17, the evidence from Sessions Case No. 118/1992 was marked as evidence, which is not permissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This procedural error vitiated the entire trial in Sessions Case No. 58/98.

8. Compensation for Victims:
The Supreme Court ordered the State to compensate the families of the deceased with Rs. 25,00,000 each and the injured witnesses with Rs. 10,00,000 each. The amounts were to be deposited in the Trial Court within eight weeks for distribution after verifying the genuineness of the claimants.

9. State’s Failure in Maintaining Law and Order:
The Supreme Court criticized the State for its failure to maintain law and order, citing reasons such as inefficiency, corruption, political interference, and inadequate training of public prosecutors and the judiciary. The Court highlighted the need for a fair and efficient criminal justice system.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of, with the Supreme Court emphasizing the need for proper framing of charges, application of Section 149 IPC, and the State’s responsibility in maintaining law and order. The Court also highlighted the importance of compensating the victims for the failure of the criminal justice system.