Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Assault Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Boini Mahipal vs. State of Telangana (2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for assault can be sustained without sufficient evidence of their direct involvement. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Boini Mahipal and Anr vs. State of Telangana. Judgment Date: 19 July 2023

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2023. Citation: 2023 INSC 629. Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Aravind Kumar, J. This judgment addresses a critical question in criminal law: Can individuals be convicted of assault based on mere presence at the scene of a crime, or is concrete evidence of their direct involvement necessary? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined the conviction of two individuals accused of assault, ultimately deciding if the conviction was justified given the available evidence. The bench comprised of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, with the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

On April 13, 2012, a complaint was filed at the Koheer Police Station regarding an incident that occurred on April 8, 2012. The complaint stated that six individuals, identified as A-1 to A-6, had assaulted Smt. Anjamma (the deceased) at her residence. It was alleged that A-1 kicked Anjamma forcefully in the stomach, causing her to fall. Anjamma received initial treatment at the Government Hospital, Zaheerabad, and was later transferred to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad. Unfortunately, she succumbed to her injuries on April 12, 2012, at 9:00 p.m.

The police registered the complaint as Crime No. 27 of 2012, initially under Sections 302, 303, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, the Learned Sessions Judge, convicted A-1 to A-4 and A-6 under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting them of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused were sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants (A-3 and A-4) filed Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2012 before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals on 11.01.2023, upholding the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, A-3 and A-4 approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 34 of the IPC states:

“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

This provision deals with the concept of joint criminal liability, where individuals can be held responsible for the actions of others if they share a common intention to commit a crime. The prosecution had invoked this section, alleging that all the accused shared a common intention to assault the deceased.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused Nos. 3 and 4):

• The appellants argued that the courts below failed to appreciate that PW-5, a witness, was a distant relative of the deceased and admitted in his testimony that no specific overt act could be attributed to the appellants. PW-5 stated that only A-1 had kicked the deceased.
• It was contended that PW-5 also admitted that family members of the deceased and the accused had formed a crowd, and the mere presence of the appellants at the scene of the crime did not establish a common intention or their participation to create vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC.
• The appellants submitted that the Sessions Judge did not record any findings on how the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC were satisfied. The conviction was based on vague statements and lacked corroborative material.
• The appellants highlighted that no injury certificates of the relatives of the deceased were produced to establish the alleged injuries they sustained.
• The post-mortem report did not incriminate the appellants, and there were significant contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4).

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Telangana):

• The respondent supported the orders of the lower courts and argued for the dismissal of the appeal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Judgment and Order of sentence convicting the petitioners (accused No. 3 and 4) is to be sustained or set aside.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment did not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal books. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the findings of the lower courts.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was primarily driven by the lack of concrete evidence linking them to the assault on the deceased. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants had assaulted the deceased, and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of medical evidence for the alleged injuries to the relatives of the deceased further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court also took note of the fact that the lower courts themselves had acknowledged the lack of clear evidence against the appellants. The court also noted the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

The Court observed that “there was no cogent and positive evidence available to prove or establish the fact that appellants herein (A-3 and A-4) having assaulted the deceased.” It further noted that “the prosecution has thus failed to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court also highlighted that “In the absence of any incriminating material or other corroborative evidence pointing the participation of appellants-accused in the incident, the conviction of appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained.”

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations of the facts or the law. The decision was based on a straightforward assessment of the evidence presented and the lack thereof.

The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellants was not sustainable due to the lack of evidence. The court set aside the judgment and order of sentence passed by the lower courts against the appellants and acquitted them. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Their bail bonds and surety bonds were discharged.

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on concrete evidence and not on mere assumptions or vague statements. It emphasizes the importance of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving joint liability.

Key Takeaways

• Convictions for assault require concrete evidence of direct involvement, not just presence at the scene.
• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Medical evidence is crucial to support claims of injury in assault cases.
• Courts should carefully assess the credibility of witnesses and ensure consistency in their testimonies.
• The principle of joint liability under Section 34 of the IPC requires proof of common intention and participation in the criminal act.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released immediately if they were not required in any other case. Their bail bonds and surety bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere presence at the scene of crime is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). There must be sufficient evidence to prove the common intention and participation of the accused in the criminal act. This case reiterates the importance of concrete evidence and the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal convictions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Boini Mahipal vs. State of Telangana is a significant reminder of the importance of evidence-based convictions in criminal law. The court’s acquittal of the appellants underscores that mere presence at a crime scene is not enough to establish guilt; concrete evidence of direct involvement is essential. This judgment reinforces the principles of justice, where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.