Supreme Court Sets Aside Erroneous Conviction in Murder Case: Deep Narayan Chourasia vs. State of Bihar (25 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2019
Citation: Deep Narayan Chourasia vs. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2019
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a High Court convict an accused of a graver offense when the trial court acquitted them of the same, and without any appeal by the State? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Deep Narayan Chourasia vs. State of Bihar. The court found that the High Court had made significant errors in its judgment, leading to the wrongful conviction of the appellant for murder. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

Five individuals, including Deep Narayan Chourasia, were initially tried for the murder of Kaushalya Devi on 06 February 1992. The Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, delivered a judgment on 08 February 1994. Kanhai Prasad Chourasia was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The other four, including Deep Narayan Chourasia, were acquitted of the murder charge but convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted Kanhai Prasad Chourasia for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The other four accused were acquitted of the murder charge but convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, all five accused filed appeals in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court, however, erroneously convicted all five accused under Section 302/149 of the IPC, in addition to upholding the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the concept of unlawful assembly and constructive liability, stating that if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offense in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section prescribes the punishment for using arms.
• Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section mandates that when a conviction is made under Section 302/149 IPC, the sentence prescribed under the said section must be awarded.

Arguments

The appellant, Deep Narayan Chourasia, challenged the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the High Court had erred in convicting him and the other three accused under Section 302/149 of the IPC when they had been acquitted of this charge by the trial court. The appellant argued that the High Court’s decision was based on a misapprehension of the facts and a misapplication of the law. The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the four accused under Section 302/149 IPC.

The High Court had erroneously stated that all five accused were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge. In reality, only Kanhai Prasad Chourasia was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, while the other four were convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Durga Shankar Mehta vs. Thakur Raghuraj Singh & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 520: This case established that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution to meet the ends of justice, even for non-appealing accused.
• Harbans Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 101: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Raja Ram & Ors. vs. State of M.P., (1994) 2 SCC 568: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Chellappan Mohandas & Ors. vs. State of Kerala, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 259: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of A.P., (1999) 7 SCC 69: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Bijoy Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 698: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Suresh Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 4 SCC 128: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 708: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.
• Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of an order passed in appeal under Article 136 to those accused who had not preferred an appeal.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the fundamental errors made by the High Court in its judgment. The Court emphasized that the High Court had acted on a wrong factual premise, misinterpreting the trial court’s judgment. The Court also noted that the High Court had wrongly convicted the appellant and three others under Section 302/149 of the IPC without any appeal by the State against their acquittal on this charge by the trial court. Additionally, the High Court failed to award any sentence under Section 302/149 IPC, which is mandatory.

The Court was also deeply concerned about the injustice caused by the High Court’s decision. The Court noted that it would be a “travesty of justice” to allow a conviction for a graver offense (Section 302/149 IPC) to stand when the accused had been acquitted of that charge by the trial court and had not had an opportunity to defend themselves against it during the appellate proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a combination of factual inaccuracies and legal misinterpretations by the High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of the High Court’s judgment but rejected them due to the fundamental errors in the High Court’s reasoning. The Court emphasized the need to adhere to proper legal procedures and ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The court held that the High Court’s judgment was based on a wrong factual premise and that the High Court had failed to apply its judicial mind.

The Supreme Court stated, “In our opinion, the Division Bench failed to apply its judicial mind and committed fundamental jurisdictional errors.” The Court further emphasized, “It is a fundamental principle of law that an illegality committed by a Court cannot be allowed to be perpetuated against a person to a Lis merely because he did not bring such illegality to the notice of the Court.” The Court also noted, “It will be a travesty of justice delivery system where an accused, who is convicted of a lesser offence… is made to suffer conviction for commission of a graver offence… without affording him of any opportunity to defend such charge at any stage of the appellate proceedings.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The Court also extended the benefit of its order to the other four accused who had not filed appeals, ensuring that they would also have their cases reheard.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must adhere strictly to the facts and findings of the trial court.
• Appellate courts cannot convict an accused of a graver offense when the trial court acquitted them of the same without any appeal by the State.
• The Supreme Court has the power to correct errors and ensure justice, even for non-appealing parties.
• The principle of natural justice requires that an accused should be given an opportunity to defend themselves against any charges.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to:

• Restore the original Criminal Appeals (Criminal Appeal(DB) No. 77/1994 and Criminal Appeal(DB) No. 112/1994).
• Rehear both appeals on their respective merits in accordance with the law.
• Issue notices to the other four accused before hearing the appeals.
• Consider appointing a lawyer for providing legal assistance to the other four accused, if needed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court cannot convict an accused of a graver offense when the trial court acquitted them of the same, and without any appeal by the State. This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must adhere to proper legal procedures and ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The Supreme Court’s decision also reaffirms its power under Article 136 of the Constitution to correct errors and ensure justice, even for non-appealing parties. This case does not introduce a new law but reiterates the importance of procedural correctness and fairness in the justice system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Deep Narayan Chourasia, setting aside the erroneous judgment of the High Court. The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing, ensuring that all five accused would have their cases reconsidered in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of procedural correctness and fairness in the justice system and the power of the apex court to rectify errors and ensure justice.