Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Witness Intimidation: Munilakshmi vs. Narendra Babu (20 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 943
Judges: Surya Kant, J., Dipankar Datta, J.
Can the Supreme Court cancel bail if there’s a strong possibility of witness tampering? This question was at the heart of a recent case where the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of bail cancellation due to the potential for witness intimidation. The court examined whether the High Court of Karnataka erred in granting bail to an accused in a murder case, considering the serious allegations and the subsequent behavior of key witnesses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a criminal appeal against an order of the High Court of Karnataka, which granted bail to Respondent No. 1, Narendra Babu, in a murder case. The deceased, Vinutha M., was married to Narendra Babu in 2006, and they had a son in 2009. The relationship deteriorated due to alleged harassment and extra-marital affairs of the Respondent No. 1. Vinutha M. filed multiple criminal complaints against him and his family, alleging harassment and attempts on her life. Despite these complaints and a High Court order for police protection, she was found dead in her apartment on 21 December 2019.

Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, after further complaints by the deceased’s mother, the charges were amended to include Section 302 (murder), along with Sections 109, 120B, 201, 450, and 454 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that Narendra Babu conspired to kill his wife by hiring contract killers. The High Court granted bail to Narendra Babu, observing that the allegations against him were primarily under Sections 109 and 120B of the IPC, and that the evidence linking him to the crime was a matter of trial.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to Respondent No. 1, observing that the allegations against him were primarily under Sections 109 and 120B of the IPC. The High Court noted that the evidence linking him to the crime was a matter of trial. The appellant, the deceased’s mother, filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging this order. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that the key witnesses, including the appellant and her family members, had turned hostile after their examination-in-chief, raising concerns about the fairness of the trial.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

• Section 109, IPC: “Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.” This section deals with the punishment for abetment of a crime, if the crime is committed as a result of the abetment and no specific punishment is provided for the abetment.
• Section 120B, IPC: “Punishment of criminal conspiracy.” This section deals with the punishment for being a party to a criminal conspiracy.
• Section 201, IPC: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.” This section deals with the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or providing false information to protect an offender.
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.” This section defines the punishment for committing murder.
• Section 450, IPC: “House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life.” This section deals with the punishment for house-trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.
• Section 454, IPC: “Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.” This section deals with the punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
• Section 34, IPC: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” This section deals with the principle of joint criminal liability when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

Additionally, the judgment also refers to:

• Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness at any stage of the trial if it is essential for a just decision.

These legal provisions are crucial for understanding the charges against the accused and the powers of the court to ensure a fair trial.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court overlooked established principles for granting bail.
• There is sufficient material to indicate Respondent No. 1’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy to kill his wife.
• Respondent No. 1 misused the concession of bail.

State Counsel’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 1 harassed the deceased and compelled her to agree to a divorce to marry someone else.
• His family members humiliated the deceased by demanding dowry and attempted to kill her.
• Respondent No. 1 has other criminal antecedents.
• CCTV footage and cell phone evidence link him to the murder.
• Respondent No. 1 was released on bail too soon, overlooking the heinous nature of the offence and his potential to influence witnesses.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• Most offences against him are bailable, except those under Sections 302, 450, and 454 of the IPC.
• The seriousness of the charge is not a test for bail consideration.
• He has not misused the concession of bail.
• There is no cogent evidence linking him to his wife’s death.
• The Supreme Court should not interfere with the High Court’s discretion in granting bail.

The arguments highlight the conflict between the right to liberty and the need to ensure a fair trial, particularly when there are allegations of witness tampering and misuse of bail.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No. 1 was justified, considering the allegations of witness intimidation and the potential for misuse of bail conditions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] and Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2021) 15 SCC 518] to establish the principles for cancellation of bail, particularly in cases of misuse of bail conditions and witness intimidation. The court distinguished Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2012) 1 SCC 40] and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 694], arguing that the facts of the present case warranted a different approach due to the potential for witness tampering. The court also relied on Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2017) 1 SCC 529] to highlight the reasons for witnesses turning hostile.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair trial and preventing the misuse of bail. The sudden change in the stance of key witnesses, who were family members of the deceased, weighed heavily on the court’s mind. The court noted that the appellant, who had been vigorously pursuing the case, suddenly retracted her statements after the grant of bail to the accused. This led the court to believe that there was a strong possibility of witness intimidation and that the accused was misusing the concession of bail.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the sudden change in witness statements, than by pure legal interpretation. The court emphasized the need to protect the integrity of the trial process.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of ensuring a fair trial. The court emphasized that the right to liberty must be balanced against the need to maintain the integrity of the justice system. The court noted, “The Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to liberty embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution on one hand and the right of the orderly society, which is committed to the rule of law, on the other.” The court also stated, “However, if it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.” Further, the court observed, “The Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings.”

Key Takeaways

• Bail can be cancelled if there is evidence of witness intimidation or misuse of bail conditions.
• The courts have a duty to ensure a fair trial and protect witnesses from threats and influence.
• The sudden change in witness statements can be a ground for recalling witnesses and cancelling bail.
• The right to liberty is not absolute and can be curtailed to ensure the integrity of the justice system.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The impugned order dated 12.08.2020 was set aside, and the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 was cancelled.
2. Respondent No. 1 was directed to surrender within one week and remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial or until the Court releases him on bail in changed circumstances.
3. The Trial Court was directed to recall PW-1, PW-4, and PW-5 for their further cross-examination.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, was directed to provide round-the-clock security to the Appellant and her family until their fresh depositions.
5. The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, was further directed to investigate whether the Appellant and her family members were threatened, induced, or subjected to any extraneous pressure for retracting their statements.
6. The Trial Court was directed to closely observe the demeanor of Respondent No. 1 or his counsel during the further cross-examination of the witnesses.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail can be cancelled if there is a strong prima facie case of witness intimidation or misuse of bail conditions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the integrity of the trial process is paramount and that the courts must take necessary steps to ensure that witnesses are able to depose freely and without fear. This judgment reinforces the principles established in previous cases regarding the cancellation of bail and provides a clear direction for lower courts to follow in similar situations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Munilakshmi vs. Narendra Babu & Anr. highlights the importance of protecting the integrity of the judicial process. The court’s decision to cancel the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 underscores the principle that the right to liberty is not absolute and can be curtailed when there is a clear threat to the fairness of the trial. The judgment also emphasizes the duty of the courts to ensure that witnesses are free to testify without fear or intimidation. The directions given by the court aim to create a conducive environment for the trial to proceed fairly and justly.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Bail, Witness Intimidation, Murder, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: Can bail be cancelled after it has been granted?
A: Yes, bail can be cancelled if the court finds that the accused has misused the concession of bail, such as by intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Q: What is witness intimidation?
A: Witness intimidation is any action taken to prevent a witness from testifying truthfully, such as threats, harassment, or bribery.

Q: What is the significance of Section 311 of the CrPC?
A: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness at any stage of the trial if it is essential for a just decision.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court cancel the bail in this case?
A: The Supreme Court cancelled the bail because it found a prima facie link between the grant of bail and the subsequent change in the stance of key witnesses, suggesting witness intimidation and misuse of bail.

Q: What should I do if I am a witness in a criminal case and feel threatened?
A: If you are a witness in a criminal case and feel threatened, you should immediately report it to the police and seek protection.