Supreme Court overturns conviction in bomb blast case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 7th January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 14

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., B.R. Gavai J., B.V. Nagarathna J.

The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the reversal of a trial court’s conviction by the High Court in a case involving a bomb blast. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court correctly overturned the conviction of the accused, who were initially found guilty by the trial court. This case highlights the complexities of appellate review in criminal matters, especially when dealing with serious offenses and conflicting testimonies. The bench was composed of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on March 10, 2005, at approximately 5:00 PM, when several individuals, including Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram, Munna Ram, and others, allegedly approached Rajesh Prasad (PW-7), the informant, and threatened his family. The accused, reportedly upset about the informant’s opposition to their illegal liquor business, hurled bombs. One bomb killed Chhote Lal Mahto, the informant’s father, at his betel shop. Another bomb killed O.P. Verma, a passerby. A third bomb was thrown but did not injure anyone. Following this, the accused fled the scene. The informant stated that the accused had a common intention to kill his father due to his opposition to their illegal activities.

A case was registered at Kotwali Police Station on March 10, 2005, under sections 302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The police filed a chargesheet on June 7, 2005. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Munger took cognizance of the case on June 8, 2005, and committed it to the Sessions Court on June 17, 2005. The case was then transferred to the Fast Track Court on December 9, 2005.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Fast Track Court convicted Upendra Ram, Mahendra Ram, and Munna Ram. Upendra Ram was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram were sentenced to death, subject to confirmation by the High Court. The Fast Track Court acquitted other accused individuals, namely, Fantus Mandal, Dhappu Ram, and Chandrabhanu Prasad. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, in response to appeals by the convicted accused and a death reference, overturned the Fast Track Court’s judgment, acquitting all the accused. The High Court cited inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence as the primary reason for its decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908: These sections pertain to offenses related to causing explosions likely to endanger life or property.

These provisions were used to charge the accused for their alleged involvement in the bomb blasts and the resulting deaths. The legal framework also includes the principles of criminal jurisprudence, such as the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Rajesh Prasad):

• The appellant argued that the High Court was incorrect in overturning the trial court’s conviction.
• The appellant’s counsel highlighted the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10, stating that it clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The appellant contended that the High Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and the culpability of the accused, as stated by the informant (PW-7) and other eyewitnesses.
• It was submitted that the Fast Track Court had correctly accepted the prosecution’s case based on the evidence presented.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused):

• The respondents supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the High Court had correctly assessed the evidence and reversed the erroneous judgment of the Fast Track Court.
• The respondents contended that the evidence did not prove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• It was submitted that the High Court’s judgment was reasoned and did not warrant any interference by the Supreme Court.
• The defense argued that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

The innovativeness in the arguments was that the appellant’s counsel stressed on the acceptance of the evidence by the Fast Track Court, while the respondents’ counsel highlighted the contradictions and inconsistencies in the witness statements.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast Track Court, thereby acquitting all the accused?
2. Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference or modification by this Court?
3. What order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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 a series of precedents to define the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. Cases like Sheo Swarup vs. R. Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227(2)]* and Atley vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC 807]* established the principle that appellate courts should be cautious while overturning acquittals unless the judgment is perverse. The court also referred to Sanwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715]*, which clarified the appellate court’s power to review evidence but emphasized the need to consider the reasons given by the lower court. The court considered the principles laid down in Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 110]*, which outlined the specific considerations for appeals against acquittals. The Court emphasized that the High Court had correctly applied these principles in its decision. The court also noted that the High Court had correctly followed the principles laid down in Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225]*, which stated that the appellate court must first seek an answer to whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable before re-appreciating the evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony: The Court noted significant contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, both during the investigation and in court. These inconsistencies raised doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Support from Informant: The informant (PW-7), who was the primary witness, did not support the prosecution’s case during the trial. This lack of support significantly weakened the prosecution’s claims.
• Flaws in Investigation: The Court highlighted several flaws in the police investigation, including delays in recording statements and inconsistencies in the evidence collected.
• Failure of the Trial Court: The Supreme Court noted that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and did not recognize that the informant did not support the prosecution’s case. The trial court had also ignored crucial issues and inverted the law to hold the appellants guilty.
• Benefit of Doubt: Given the inconsistencies and the lack of corroborating evidence, the Court concluded that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations and rejected them due to lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The final decision was reached by re-appreciating the evidence and concluding that the High Court’s judgment was correct.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The High Court correctly identified significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence.
• The informant (PW-7) did not support the prosecution’s case during the trial, which significantly weakened their claims.
• There were several flaws in the police investigation, including delays in recording statements and inconsistencies in the evidence collected.
• The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and did not recognize that the informant did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The benefit of doubt must go to the accused due to the lack of corroborating evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the High Court’s judgment:

• “The several inconsistencies, contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and other necessary materials leave this Court satisfied that they have attempted to conceal more than they have sought to reveal of the occurrence.”
• “The prosecution despite the nature of evidence given by its witnesses, did not consider it necessary to re-examine them under Section 137 of the Evidence Act or cross-examine them under Section 154 of the same.”
• “The illicit liquor trade rivalry revealed during trial between the two sides, leaves this Court satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge cannot be stated to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that the High Court had correctly applied the principles of appellate review in cases of acquittal. The Court also set aside the High Court’s direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant, considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that two deaths occurred.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate Review Standards: The judgment reinforces the standards for appellate review in cases of acquittal, emphasizing that High Courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the judgment is perverse.
• Importance of Consistent Testimony: The case highlights the importance of consistent and credible witness testimony in criminal cases. Inconsistencies and contradictions can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Role of Informants: The judgment underscores the significance of the informant’s testimony in a criminal trial. If the informant does not support the prosecution’s case, it can be a major setback for the prosecution.
• Investigative Integrity: The case emphasizes the need for thorough and unbiased police investigations. Flaws in the investigation can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• Trial Court Responsibilities: The judgment serves as a reminder to trial courts to properly appreciate the evidence and to recognize when a witness does not support the prosecution’s case.
• Burden of Proof: The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment could influence future cases involving similar circumstances, particularly where there are inconsistencies in witness testimonies and flaws in the investigation.
• It serves as a precedent for appellate courts to exercise caution when reviewing acquittals and to ensure that the trial court’s judgment is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.
• The ruling could lead to stricter scrutiny of police investigations and a greater emphasis on the credibility of witness testimonies.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the appellant (PW-7). The Court affirmed the rest of the High Court’s judgment and order of acquittal.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should be cautious in overturning a trial court’s acquittal unless the judgment is perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court was correct in finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the lack of support from the informant, and flaws in the investigation. The Court also highlighted the importance of a fair trial and the need for trial courts to properly appreciate evidence.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: There was no change in the previous positions of law. The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles of appellate review in cases of acquittal and emphasized the need for consistent witness testimony and a thorough investigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused in the bomb blast case. The Court emphasized that the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the lack of support from the primary informant. While the Court set aside the High Court’s direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant, it affirmed the rest of the judgment, reinforcing the standards for appellate review and the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials.