LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when the trial court had acquitted the accused under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and there was no evidence to prove the appellant was the author of the shot that killed the deceased.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Ramvir vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Judgment Date: 26 October 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a person be convicted of murder when there is no evidence directly linking them to the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, overturning a High Court judgment. The Court held that the accused could not be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder and Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC for rioting, when there was no evidence to prove that the accused was the author of the shot that killed the deceased and when the trial court had already acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 149 of the IPC. This judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence in criminal convictions.
The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Case Background
On December 25, 1980, at approximately 5 PM, Siya Ram and his son, Kripal, were on their way to a “Baithak” in their village, Bishnodi. Near Ram Vilas’s hut, they were ambushed by Ramvir (the appellant) and five others: Bhoorey, Satya Ram, Shaitan Singh, Ram Das, and Jagdamba Prasad. These individuals, armed with guns and rifles, surrounded Siya Ram and fired shots. Siya Ram sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene.
Upon hearing the commotion, Badri, the uncle of the deceased, along with other villagers, rushed to the spot. Seeing the approaching crowd, the appellant and the other accused fled, firing shots in the air as they retreated.
The next morning, Badri lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Patiyali police station, naming the six individuals involved in the attack. The police investigation led to the arrest of all six individuals, who were subsequently charged under Sections 148, 149 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 25, 1980, 5 PM | Siya Ram and his son Kripal were attacked near Ram Vilas’s hut. Siya Ram died at the spot. |
| December 26, 1980 | Badri, uncle of the deceased, filed an FIR at the Patiyali police station. |
| July 15, 1983 | The Sessions Judge acquitted five accused persons (A-2 to A-6) of all charges. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant (A-1) under Section 302 of the IPC but acquitted him under Section 149 of the IPC. |
| February 28, 2012 | The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and further convicted him under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC. |
| October 26, 2018 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Judge, after examining the evidence, acquitted five of the six accused (A-2 to A-6) of all charges. The appellant (A-1), Ramvir, was acquitted of the charges under Section 149 of the IPC but was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for murder. The Sessions Judge found Ramvir guilty of committing murder but did not find him to be part of an unlawful assembly.
Aggrieved by this decision, Ramvir appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The State did not appeal the acquittal of the other five accused or the acquittal of Ramvir under Section 149 of the IPC.
The High Court dismissed Ramvir’s appeal, upholding his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the High Court went further and convicted Ramvir under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, reversing the trial court’s decision on this point, even though the State had not appealed this acquittal.
Ramvir then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging both his conviction under Section 302 and his conviction under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation and application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
-
Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
-
Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the concept of vicarious liability in an unlawful assembly. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of the same assembly at the time of the commission of that offense is guilty of that offense.
-
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for the offense of murder.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the legality of the High Court’s decision to convict the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, despite the trial court’s acquittal on the same charges and the lack of appeal by the State on this point. The arguments also addressed the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC in the absence of direct evidence linking the appellant to the fatal shot.
Appellant’s Submissions:
-
The High Court erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC because the trial court had already acquitted him of these charges and the State did not appeal this acquittal. The High Court cannot reverse an acquittal in an appeal filed by the accused.
-
The appellant argued that since the other five co-accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, he could not be convicted under these sections, as it was the prosecution’s case that all six were members of the same unlawful assembly.
-
The appellant contended that there was no evidence to prove that he was the one who fired the shot that killed Siya Ram. The ballistic report did not support the prosecution’s case, and the alleged rifle was not seized by the police immediately after the incident.
Respondent’s Submissions:
-
The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, as there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly.
-
The respondent contended that the High Court was justified in upholding the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, as the evidence on record established the appellant’s involvement in the crime.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of Appellant | Sub-Submissions of Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC |
|
|
| Conviction under Section 302 of the IPC |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
-
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
-
Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | Not Justified | The High Court itself noted that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was the author of the shot that killed Siya Ram. Additionally, the ballistic report did not support the prosecution’s case, and the alleged rifle was not seized by the police immediately after the incident. |
| Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | Not Justified | The appellant was acquitted by the Sessions Judge under Section 149 of the IPC, and the State did not appeal this acquittal. The High Court could not have convicted the appellant under these sections in an appeal filed by the accused. Furthermore, since the other co-accused were also acquitted of these charges, the appellant could not be convicted under these sections as a member of the same unlawful assembly. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:
-
Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
-
Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the concept of vicarious liability in an unlawful assembly.
-
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for the offense of murder.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the provision to determine if the appellant could be convicted under it. |
| Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the provision to determine if the appellant could be convicted under it. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the provision to determine if the appellant could be convicted under it. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court erred in convicting him under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC because the trial court had already acquitted him of these charges and the State did not appeal this acquittal. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC because the trial court had already acquitted him of these charges and the State did not appeal this acquittal. |
| Appellant’s submission that since the other five co-accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, he could not be convicted under these sections. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that since the other co-accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, the appellant could not be convicted under these sections as a member of the same unlawful assembly. |
| Appellant’s submission that there was no evidence to prove that he was the one who fired the shot that killed Siya Ram. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was the one who fired the shot that killed Siya Ram. The ballistic report did not support the prosecution’s case, and the alleged rifle was not seized by the police immediately after the incident. |
| Respondent’s submission that the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, as there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC. |
| Respondent’s submission that the High Court was justified in upholding the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, as the evidence on record established the appellant’s involvement in the crime. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in upholding the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court considered the following legal provisions:
-
Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that the appellant could not be convicted under this section because the trial court had acquitted him of this charge and the State did not appeal this acquittal.
-
Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that the appellant could not be convicted under this section because the trial court had acquitted him of this charge and the State did not appeal this acquittal. The Court also noted that since the other co-accused were acquitted of this charge, the appellant could not be convicted under this section as a member of the same unlawful assembly.
-
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that the appellant could not be convicted under this section because there was no evidence to prove that he was the one who fired the shot that killed Siya Ram.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence linking him to the crime and the procedural errors made by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court could not have reversed the trial court’s acquittal under Section 149 of the IPC in an appeal filed by the accused. Additionally, the Court noted that the High Court itself acknowledged that there was no evidence to prove the appellant was the author of the shot that killed the deceased. The absence of supporting ballistic evidence and the failure to immediately seize the alleged rifle further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principles of natural justice, due process, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of evidence linking the appellant to the fatal shot | 40% |
| Trial court’s acquittal of the appellant under Section 149 of the IPC | 30% |
| State’s failure to appeal the acquittal under Section 149 of the IPC | 20% |
| Ballistic report not supporting the prosecution’s case | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio Table
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, held that the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court noted that the High Court itself had acknowledged that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was the author of the shot that killed Siya Ram. The Court also pointed out that the ballistic report did not support the prosecution’s case, and the alleged rifle was not seized by the police immediately after the incident.
The Court also held that the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC. The Court observed that the trial court had already acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 149 of the IPC, and the State had not appealed this acquittal. The Court further noted that since the other five co-accused were also acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, the appellant could not be convicted under these sections as a member of the same unlawful assembly.
The Court stated,
“Even at the cost of repetition, we want to note that there was no evidence on record suggestive of the inference which was drawn by the learned trial judge against the present appellant that he was author of the shot that hit and killed the deceased Siya Ram…”
The Court further stated,
“In this view of the matter, there was no occasion for the High Court to have gone into this question in an appeal filed by the accused (appellant herein) as the same had attained finality.”
The Court also noted,
“In other words, once it was held by the Sessions Judge that all the six accused persons could not be convicted under Section 148/149 ibid and were accordingly acquitted and no appeal having been filed by the State against this part of the order, the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 148/149IPC.”
The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The appellant was acquitted of all the charges.
Key Takeaways
-
The High Court cannot reverse an acquittal in an appeal filed by the accused, especially when the State has not appealed the acquittal.
-
A person cannot be convicted of murder without sufficient evidence directly linking them to the crime.
-
If the prosecution’s case is that multiple individuals were part of an unlawful assembly, and some are acquitted, the remaining individuals cannot be convicted under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC as members of the same assembly.
-
Ballistic reports and immediate seizure of evidence are crucial in criminal cases involving firearms.
-
The judgment underscores the importance of due process and the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal law.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Ramvir, be set at liberty unless required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for murder when there is no direct evidence linking them to the crime. The Court also held that the High Court cannot reverse an acquittal under Section 149 of the IPC in an appeal filed by the accused, especially when the State has not appealed the acquittal. This judgment reinforces the importance of concrete evidence and due process in criminal trials. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the procedure to be followed by the High Court in criminal appeals.
Conclusion
In the case of Ramvir vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime and the procedural errors made by the High Court. This judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence and due process in criminal trials, ensuring that convictions are based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.