LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction and acquitting the accused in a double murder case.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal

Case Name: Rajesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. ETC.

Judgment Date: 7th January 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7th January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 192

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

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction in a double murder case based on conflicting witness statements? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in the case of Rajesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. ETC. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court of Judicature at Patna correctly acquitted the accused, overturning the conviction by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Munger. This judgment analyses the evidence and legal principles involved in appeals against acquittals. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on March 10, 2005, at approximately 5:00 PM, when a group of individuals, including Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram, Munna Ram, Dhappu Ram, and Chandrabhanu Prasad, along with two unknown persons, confronted Rajesh Prasad (PW-7), the informant. They protested that since Rajesh Prasad had opposed their illegal activities, his entire family would be blown up by a bomb. Munna Ram threw a bomb at Rajesh Prasad’s father, Chhote Lal Mahto, who was sitting in his betel shop. The rear portion of his head was blown off, resulting in his death. Mahendra Ram threw another bomb at O.P. Verma, who also died on the spot. Upendra Ram threw a third bomb that missed and exploded on the road. Chandrabhanu and Dhappu Ram then stated that their job was done and attempted to flee. The public caught one unknown person who was injured and later died. The accused, while fleeing, threatened that their actions were a result of the informant’s opposition to their illicit liquor sales.

Rajesh Prasad had been objecting to the illegal sale of liquor by the accused. The accused, with a common intention, hurled bombs and killed Rajesh Prasad’s father and another person.

Timeline

Date Event
March 10, 2005 Incident occurred at 5:00 PM: Bomb blasts resulted in the death of Chhote Lal Mahto and O.P. Verma.
March 10, 2005 Kotawali PS Case No. 136/2005 registered against the accused under sections 302/34, 120B of IPC and sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
June 7, 2005 Chargesheet submitted against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger.
June 8, 2005 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger took cognizance of the alleged offences.
June 17, 2005 Case committed to the Court of Sessions.
December 9, 2005 Case transferred to the Fast Track Court.
June 26, 2008 Fast Track Court convicted Upendra Ram, Mahendra Ram, and Munna Ram.
June 30, 2008 Fast Track Court sentenced Upendra Ram to life imprisonment and Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram to death.
August 5, 2009 High Court of Judicature at Patna set aside the conviction and acquitted all accused.
January 7, 2022 Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the perjury direction while upholding the acquittal.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions. The accused were charged under:

  • ✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder.
  • ✓ Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  • ✓ Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to criminal conspiracy.
  • ✓ Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which relate to causing explosions likely to endanger life or property.

These provisions form the basis of the criminal charges against the accused for their involvement in the bomb blasts that resulted in the deaths of Chhote Lal Mahto and O.P. Verma.

Arguments

The appellant, Rajesh Prasad, argued that the High Court incorrectly set aside the Fast Track Court’s conviction. The appellant’s counsel emphasized the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10, asserting that it clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant also contended that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the informant (PW-7), who was a son of the deceased, Chhote Lal Mahto.

The appellant further argued that the High Court’s direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the appellant was unnecessary, given that the Fast Track Court had accepted the prosecution’s case. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the accused committed serious offences under Section 302/34 read with Section 120B of the IPC, resulting in the death of two persons.

The respondents (accused) supported the High Court’s judgment, contending that the High Court rightly assessed the evidence and reversed the erroneous judgment of the Fast Track Court. The respondents argued that the evidence did not prove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. They stated that the High Court had correctly reversed the death penalty and life imprisonment imposed by the Fast Track Court.

Main Submission Appellant’s Sub-Submissions Respondent’s Sub-Submissions
Validity of High Court’s Acquittal ✓ The High Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10.
✓ The High Court failed to consider the informant’s (PW-7) testimony.
✓ The High Court’s direction for perjury proceedings against the appellant was unnecessary. 		✓ The High Court correctly assessed the evidence.
✓ The evidence did not prove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
✓ The High Court rightly reversed the erroneous judgment of the Fast Track Court.
Evidence and Guilt of the Accused ✓ The evidence clearly established the guilt of the accused.
✓ The accused committed serious offences resulting in the death of two persons.
✓ The accused hurled bombs at the deceased. 		✓ The Fast Track Court failed to note that the evidence on record did not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
✓ The High Court rightly reversed the death penalty and life imprisonment.
See also  Supreme Court bars Civil Suits challenging land ceiling orders: Meg Raj vs. Manphool (2019) INSC 195

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

Issue Court’s Treatment
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? The Supreme Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found that the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s judgment. The Fast Track Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and had erroneously convicted the accused. The High Court had given categorical reasons for its decision, which were upheld by the Supreme Court.
Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference or modification by this Court? The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s judgment was largely correct, except for the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the appellant. The Court set aside this specific direction, affirming the rest of the High Court’s judgment.
What order? The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the perjury direction while upholding the acquittal of the accused.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities while deciding the case. These authorities were categorized by the legal points they addressed.

Authority Legal Point How the Court Considered
Sheo Swarup vs. R. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227(2) Powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. The Court discussed the double presumption in favor of the accused in acquittal cases and the need for the High Court to give proper weight to the trial judge’s views on witness credibility.
Atley vs. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 Approach of the appellate court while considering a judgment of acquittal. The Court observed that unless the appellate court concludes that the judgment of acquittal was perverse, it could not set aside the same.
Sanwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 Power of the appellate court to review evidence in an acquittal appeal. The Court reiterated that an appellate court has full power to review evidence but should also consider the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal.
Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 Conditions for the High Court to take a different view on evidence. The Court noted that there must be substantial and compelling reasons for the High Court to hold that the trial court was wrong.
M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 Approach of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal. The Court observed that the High Court should be cautious because the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial.
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 Balancing the presumption of innocence with the need for effective criminal justice. The Court emphasized the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic.
Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 Approach of the appellate court while considering an appeal against an order acquitting the accused. The Court stated that the appellate court must first determine if the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable.
Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110 Principles governing the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an acquittal order. The Court set out principles that regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 Difference in exercising power while hearing an appeal against acquittal. The Court highlighted that the appellate court would not interfere where the judgment is based on evidence and the view taken was reasonable and plausible.
Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 12 SCC 351 Reversal of High Court judgment setting aside acquittal. The Court reversed the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s acquittal based on a reappreciation of the evidence.
State of U.P. v. Sahai, AIR 1981 SC 1442 Caution in interfering with an order of acquittal. The Court stated that it is cautious in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when confirmed up to the High Court.
Arunachalam v. Sadhananthan, AIR 1979 (SC) 1284 Reluctance to expose a person acquitted to further examination. The Court noted the reluctance to expose a person acquitted by a competent court to the anxiety of further examination.
State of Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh, (1990) CrLJ 2274 (SC) Conditions for entertaining an appeal against acquittal. The Court stated that an appeal cannot be entertained against an order of acquittal that has arrived at an unassailable, logical conclusion.
State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh, AIR 1984 SC 207 Rejection of evidence based on suspicion and surmises. The Court noted that incontrovertible evidence should not be rejected based on unrealistic suspicion and surmises.
State of UP v. Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 879 Discounting direct eyewitness accounts without cogent reasoning. The Court noted that direct, unanimous accounts of eyewitnesses should not be discounted without cogent reasoning.
State of UP v. Hakim Singh, AIR 1980 SC 184 Discounting testimony of relatives on the ground of being ‘interested’ witnesses. The Court noted that the intrinsic merits of relatives’ testimony should not be discounted merely because they are ‘interested’ witnesses.
Arunachalam v. Sadhanantham, AIR 1979 SC 1284 Rejection of dying declaration on irrelevant grounds. The Court noted that a dying declaration should not be rejected on irrelevant grounds.
State of UP v. Ranjha Ram, AIR 1986 SC 1959 Application of unrealistic standards of ‘implicit proof’. The Court noted that an unrealistic standard of ‘implicit proof’ should not be applied instead of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’.
State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1675 Rejection of circumstantial evidence based on exaggerated theories. The Court noted that circumstantial evidence should not be rejected based on exaggerated and capricious theories.
Gurbachan v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209 Acquittal based on exaggerated devotion to benefit of doubt. The Court noted that acquittal should not rest merely on exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt.
State of AP v. Bogam Chandraiah, AIR 1986 SC 1899 Acquittal on the ground of lack of adequate motive despite strong direct evidence. The Court noted that an acquittal should not be based on lack of motive when there is strong direct evidence.
State of UP v. Pheru Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205 Findings based on perfunctory consideration of evidence. The Court noted that findings should not be based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pussu 1983 AIR 867 (SC) Findings based on extenuating circumstances in imagination and fantasy. The Court noted that findings should not be based on extenuating circumstances that are purely based in imagination and fantasy.
See also  Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018)

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found that the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s judgment. The Fast Track Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and had erroneously convicted the accused. The High Court had given categorical reasons for its decision, which were upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also addressed the High Court’s direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the appellant (PW-7). While acknowledging that the appellant did not support the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court set aside this direction, considering the circumstances and the fact that the incident resulted in two deaths that were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Submission How the Court Treated the Submission
Appellant’s argument that the High Court incorrectly set aside the conviction. The Court rejected this submission, finding that the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction due to the flawed evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Appellant’s reliance on the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. The Court found that the evidence of these witnesses was not consistent and reliable enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant’s contention that the High Court failed to appreciate the informant’s testimony. The Court noted that the informant (PW-7) had resiled from his initial statements and did not support the prosecution’s case during the trial.
Appellant’s argument that the High Court’s direction to initiate perjury proceedings was unnecessary. The Court agreed and set aside this direction, considering the circumstances of the case.
Respondents’ argument that the High Court rightly assessed the evidence. The Court accepted this submission, finding that the High Court had correctly assessed the evidence and reversed the erroneous judgment of the Fast Track Court.
Respondents’ argument that the prosecution’s case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court agreed with this submission, noting the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence.


Authorities and their Treatment by the Court:

  • Sheo Swarup vs. R. Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227(2)]: The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused.
  • Atley vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC 807]: The Court noted that an appellate court should not set aside an acquittal unless it is perverse.
  • Sanwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715]: The Court emphasized that the appellate court has full power to review evidence but should consider the reasons given by the lower court.
  • M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC 200]: The Court reiterated the need for caution in appeals against acquittal due to the presumption of innocence.
  • Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]: The Court highlighted the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the need for effective criminal justice.
  • Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225]: The Court stated that the appellate court must first determine if the trial court’s findings are palpably wrong before reappraising the evidence.
  • Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 110]: The Court set out principles that regulate the hearing of appeals against acquittal.
  • Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]: The Court highlighted that the appellate court should not interfere if the trial court’s view is reasonable and plausible.
  • Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana [(2009) 12 SCC 351]: The Court reversed the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s acquittal based on a reappreciation of the evidence.
  • State of U.P. v. Sahai [AIR 1981 SC 1442]: The Court emphasized caution in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when confirmed by the High Court.
  • Arunachalam v. Sadhananthan [AIR 1979 (SC) 1284]: The Court noted the reluctance to expose an acquitted person to further examination.
  • State of Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh [(1990) CrLJ 2274 (SC)]: The Court stated that an appeal cannot be entertained against a logical acquittal.
  • State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh [AIR 1984 SC 207]: The Court stated that evidence should not be rejected based on unrealistic suspicion.
  • State of UP v. Shanker [AIR 1981 SC 879]: The Court noted that direct eyewitness accounts should not be discounted without valid reasoning.
  • State of UP v. Hakim Singh [AIR 1980 SC 184]: The Court noted that the intrinsic merits of relatives’ testimony should not be discounted merely because they are ‘interested’ witnesses.
  • Arunachalam v. Sadhanantham [AIR 1979 SC 1284]: The Court noted that a dying declaration should not be rejected on irrelevant grounds.
  • State of UP v. Ranjha Ram [AIR 1986 SC 1959]: The Court noted that an unrealistic standard of ‘implicit proof’ should not be applied instead of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’.
  • State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah [AIR 1981 SC 1675]: The Court noted that circumstantial evidence should not be rejected based on exaggerated theories.
  • Gurbachan v. Satpal Singh [AIR 1990 SC 209]: The Court noted that acquittal should not rest merely on exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt.
  • State of AP v. Bogam Chandraiah [AIR 1986 SC 1899]: The Court noted that acquittal should not be based on lack of motive when there is strong direct evidence.
  • State of UP v. Pheru Singh [AIR 1989 SC 1205]: The Court noted that findings should not be based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence.
  • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pussu [1983 AIR 867 (SC)]: The Court noted that findings should not be based on extenuating circumstances that are purely based in imagination and fantasy.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Discrepancy in Weapon and Injury: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amar Lal (2019)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court noted that the High Court had rightly identified the flaws in the trial court’s judgment, which had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had erroneously convicted the accused. The Court emphasized that the prosecution witnesses, including the informant, had resiled from their initial statements, casting doubt on the veracity of their testimony. The Court also noted the significant discrepancies in the timeline of events and the lack of corroboration for key aspects of the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentiment Percentage
Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence 40%
Failure of the trial court to appreciate the evidence 25%
Resiling of witnesses from initial statements 20%
Lack of corroboration of prosecution’s case 10%
Presumption of innocence 5%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 40%
Law 60%
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction?
↓
Analysis: Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and witness testimonies.
↓
Analysis: Trial court failed to appreciate evidence properly.
↓
Analysis: Informant (PW-7) resiled from initial statements.
↓
Analysis: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
↓
Conclusion: High Court’s reversal of conviction was justified.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. ETC. highlights several important legal principles and practical implications:

  • ✓ **Importance of Consistent Evidence:** The judgment underscores the critical need for consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases. Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
  • ✓ **Proper Appreciation of Evidence:** Trial courts must properly appreciate all evidence presented, including witness testimonies, and not rely on assumptions or conjectures.
  • ✓ **Presumption of Innocence:** The principle of “presumed innocent until proven guilty” remains paramount. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • ✓ **Role of Appellate Courts:** Appellate courts play a vital role in ensuring that lower court judgments are based on a thorough and accurate assessment of the evidence.
  • ✓ **Perjury Proceedings:** While perjury proceedings can be initiated against witnesses who provide false testimony, they should be done judiciously and not in a manner that undermines justice.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough investigation, consistent evidence, and a fair trial process in criminal cases. It also clarifies the role and responsibility of trial and appellate courts in the administration of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the portion of the High Court’s judgment that directed the trial court to initiate perjury proceedings against the appellant (PW-7). The rest of the High Court’s judgment, which acquitted the accused, was affirmed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court is justified in reversing a trial court’s conviction when there are significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, and when the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of theprinciple of “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case reinforces the established legal position regarding the role of appellate courts in reviewing trial court judgments, particularly in cases of acquittal. It clarifies that while appellate courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence, they should not interfere with an acquittal unless it is perverse, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable. The judgment also serves as a reminder that courts should not initiate perjury proceedings against witnesses unless it is absolutely necessary and justified, and not merely because a witness’s testimony does not support the prosecution’s case.

Source: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar