LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case that has resulted in conviction and execution of sentences can be reviewed based on new research.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice
Judgment Date: 28 March 2018

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2018
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: S.A. Bobde, J. and L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Can a decades-old criminal case, where convictions have been made and sentences served, be reopened based on new research and theories? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, dismissing a petition seeking to re-investigate the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The Court held that concluded criminal cases should not be reviewed based on new research, especially when the truth is already well-established. This judgment underscores the importance of finality in criminal proceedings. The bench comprised Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948. Following the assassination, nine individuals were tried for conspiracy and murder. The Special Judge, Delhi, delivered a judgment on February 10, 1949, convicting seven of the accused and acquitting one. Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte received death sentences, four were given life sentences, and one was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. The convictions were challenged in the Punjab High Court. On June 21, 1949, the High Court upheld the convictions of five accused and acquitted two. All the accused are now deceased.

The petitioner, Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis, described himself as “An Engineer, Management Graduate, Ph.D and a Researcher with passion.” In 2016, he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, raising questions about the number of bullets fired and seeking a reopening of the Kapur Commission Report, which was submitted 46 years prior. The High Court declined to entertain the petition. The petitioner claimed to have conducted research that suggested the involvement of an “unseen hand” in the assassination, which led him to approach the court.

Timeline

Date Event
January 30, 1948 Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated.
February 10, 1949 Special Judge, Delhi, convicted seven accused and acquitted one.
June 21, 1949 Punjab High Court upheld convictions of five accused and acquitted two.
1969 Kapur Commission submitted its report.
2016 Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
March 28, 2018 Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court noted that there is no provision in law to review criminal cases that have resulted in conviction and execution of sentences, especially after the demise of those who served life sentences. The Court referred to the principle that criminal cases should reach finality. The Court also cited the case of Ram Kishan Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar [1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538], where a Constitution bench held that a Commission of Inquiry has no power of adjudication and that its report is purely recommendatory and not enforceable. The Court emphasized that findings of a commission of inquiry cannot influence the discretion of a court of law.

See also  Supreme Court clarifies forgery under Section 465 IPC: Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj (2018)

Arguments

The petitioner made the following submissions:

  • Fourth Bullet Theory: The petitioner argued that four bullets were fired at Mahatma Gandhi, not three as concluded by the trial court. He claimed that this discrepancy pointed to the involvement of an “unseen hand” in the assassination.
  • Review of Kapur Commission Findings: The petitioner sought a review of the Kapur Commission’s finding that the conspiracy to murder was by Savarkar and his group. He contended that this finding was unfair to the followers of Shri Savarkar, as it was made after his death without giving him or his representatives an opportunity to be heard.

The Court’s response to these arguments:

  • The Court rejected the “fourth bullet theory” stating that the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and forensic reports, clearly indicated that only three bullets were fired. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s theory was based on an interpretation of a photograph, which could not be verified at this stage.
  • The Court declined to review the Kapur Commission’s findings, stating that such an exercise would be futile and would only reignite controversy. The Court emphasized that the Commission’s findings were not binding and could not overturn the criminal court’s acquittal of Shri Savarkar.

The Learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Amrendra Sharan, submitted that the Kapur Commission’s finding against Savarkar was made after his demise, without giving him a chance to be heard. He also submitted that the finding was unfair, as Savarkar had been acquitted at the trial.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Petitioner’s Submission: Fourth Bullet Theory
  • Four bullets were fired, not three.
  • Involvement of an “unseen hand.”
  • Based on interpretation of a photograph.
Petitioner’s Submission: Review of Kapur Commission Findings
  • Kapur Commission’s finding against Savarkar is unfair.
  • Finding was made after Savarkar’s death.
  • Savarkar was not given an opportunity to be heard.
  • Hurts the sentiments of Savarkar’s followers.
Amicus Curiae’s Submission: Kapur Commission Findings
  • Finding against Savarkar was made after his demise.
  • Savarkar was not given an opportunity to be heard.
  • Finding is unfair, as Savarkar was acquitted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

  1. Whether the criminal case relating to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi can be reopened based on new research and theories.
  2. Whether the findings of the Kapur Commission can be reviewed or a new commission set up.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the criminal case relating to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi can be reopened based on new research and theories. Rejected. The Court held that concluded criminal cases should not be reviewed based on new research, especially when the truth is already well-established. There is no provision in law for such a review.
Whether the findings of the Kapur Commission can be reviewed or a new commission set up. Rejected. The Court held that the Kapur Commission’s report is recommendatory and not binding. Reviewing it would be futile and reignite controversy.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

  • Ram Kishan Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar [1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538] – Supreme Court of India

    The Constitution Bench in this case held that a Commission of Inquiry has no power of adjudication, and its report is purely recommendatory and not enforceable. This was used to emphasize that the Kapur Commission’s findings were not binding and could not overturn the criminal court’s acquittal of Shri Savarkar.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies the competency of child witnesses in murder cases: Ramesh vs. State (2019)

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

  • The Court noted that there is no provision in law to review criminal cases that have resulted in conviction and execution of sentences.
Authority Court How it was used
Ram Kishan Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar [1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538] Supreme Court of India Cited to support that a Commission of Inquiry’s report is recommendatory and not binding.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Submission by the Parties How it was treated by the Court
Petitioner’s submission that four bullets were fired. Rejected. The Court found no evidence to support the “fourth bullet theory.” The Court relied on eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, which indicated that only three bullets were fired.
Petitioner’s submission to review the Kapur Commission’s findings. Rejected. The Court held that the Kapur Commission’s findings were recommendatory and not binding. Reviewing it would be futile and reignite controversy.
Amicus Curiae’s submission that the Kapur Commission’s finding against Savarkar was unfair. The Court acknowledged the submission but did not find it necessary to review the Kapur Commission’s findings. The Court emphasized that the Commission’s findings were not binding and could not overturn the criminal court’s acquittal of Shri Savarkar.

The Court viewed the authorities as follows:

  • Ram Kishan Dalmia v. Justice S.R.Tendolkar [1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the Kapur Commission’s findings were not binding and could not overturn the criminal court’s acquittal of Shri Savarkar.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of finality in criminal cases and the lack of legal basis for reopening concluded matters. The Court also emphasized the well-established facts of the case, including eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, which did not support the petitioner’s claims. The Court was wary of reopening a case based on academic research and hearsay, especially when the truth was already well-known.

Sentiment Percentage
Finality of criminal cases 40%
Lack of legal basis for review 30%
Well-established facts of the case 20%
Rejection of hearsay and academic research 10%

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the Court’s decision is as follows:

Category Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

Issue: Can a concluded criminal case be reopened based on new research?
No legal provision for review of concluded criminal cases.
Eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence support the original findings.
New research is not a valid basis for reopening the case.
Petition dismissed.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, stating that the well-established facts and legal principles did not support the petitioner’s claims.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

  • The principle of finality in criminal cases.
  • Lack of legal basis for reviewing concluded criminal cases.
  • The well-established facts of the case, including eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence.
  • Rejection of hearsay and academic research as a basis for reopening the case.
  • The Kapur Commission’s findings were not binding and could not overturn the criminal court’s acquittal of Shri Savarkar.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies High Court's powers in Transfer Pricing Appeals: SAP Labs India vs. Income Tax Officer (2023)

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

  • “Criminal cases which result in conviction and even execution of death sentences and the demise of those who have served life sentences ought not to be reviewed, neither is there a provision in law for review.”
  • “While undoubtedly the nation has right to know the truth, such a right cannot be invoked where the truth is already well known merely because some academic research raises a different perspective in law. This would amount to reopening issues based on hearsay.”
  • “The Commission has no power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced proprio vigore.”

Key Takeaways

  • Criminal cases that have resulted in conviction and execution of sentences should not be reviewed based on new research.
  • There is no provision in law for reviewing concluded criminal cases.
  • Academic research and hearsay are not valid bases for reopening criminal cases where the truth is already well-established.
  • Commission of Inquiry reports are recommendatory and not binding.
  • The principle of finality in criminal cases is paramount.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal cases that have resulted in conviction and execution of sentences should not be reviewed based on new research or academic theories. This judgment reinforces the principle of finality in criminal cases and clarifies that Commission of Inquiry reports are not binding and cannot overturn the decisions of criminal courts. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking to reopen the investigation into Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. The Court emphasized that concluded criminal cases should not be reviewed based on new research, especially when the truth is already well-established. This judgment reinforces the principle of finality in criminal proceedings and clarifies the limitations of academic research in reopening concluded matters.