LEGAL ISSUE: Criminal Appeal against conviction for murder and unlawful assembly. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel vs. State of U.P. [Judgment Date]: 04 November 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 04 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1114
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a High Court reverse a Trial Court’s acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the brutal murder of five individuals. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had overturned the Trial Court’s acquittal, convicting the accused. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s decision was justified. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need to correct “glaring mistakes” by lower courts.
Case Background
The case stems from a long-standing dispute between two groups in Hamirpur, U.P. On January 26, 1997, at around 9:10 PM, two separate but related incidents occurred. The first incident took place in front of Naseem’s gun shop, and the second near the residence of Parma Pandit, about 50-75 meters away. The victims were associated with the Shukla family, who had a long-standing rivalry with the group led by Ashok Chandel (A5). Rajiv Shukla (PW-1), the informant, along with his servant Lallan, encountered his elder brother Rakesh Kumar Shukla and others in a vehicle (jonga) near Naseem’s gun shop. As they stopped to talk, several accused persons, including Ashok Kumar Chandel (A5), Naseem (A6), and others, emerged from the gun shop and began firing indiscriminately at the jonga. Shortly after, another group of accused, including Raghuvir Singh (A1) and his son Ashutosh (A2), arrived and also started firing. The firing resulted in injuries to several people, including Sri Kant (deceased) and Ved Prakash (deceased) as well as Rakesh Kumar Shukla, Gudda, Chandan, and Vipul. In the second incident, Rajesh Shukla, the elder brother of PW-1, attempted to retaliate but was fatally injured. PW-1 and Ravi Kant Pandey (PW-2) also sustained injuries in the cross-fire. The assailants then fled the scene.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26.01.1997, 7:30 PM | First incident: Firing at jonga in front of Naseem’s gun shop. |
| 26.01.1997, Shortly after 7:30 PM | Second incident: Firing near Parma Pandit’s house. |
| 26.01.1997, 7:50 PM | PW-1 reaches the hospital. |
| 26.01.1997, 8:30 PM | PW-1 examined at the hospital. |
| 26.01.1997, 9:10 PM | FIR lodged by PW-1 at the police station. |
| 27.01.1997 | Post-mortems of deceased conducted. |
| 27.01.1997, 7:50 PM | Two more FIRs registered against Sahab Singh and Ashok Kumar Chandel under the Arms Act. |
| 27.01.1997 | Arrest of Naseem (A6), Shyam Singh (A7), Sahab Singh (A8), and Bhan Singh (A10). |
| 01.02.1997 | Arrest of Raghuvir Singh (A1), Dabbu (A2), Pradeep (A4) and Uttam (A3). |
| 22.02.1997 | Charge-sheet filed against 10 accused. |
| 15.07.2002 | Trial Court acquits all the accused. |
| 19.04.2019 | High Court convicts the accused. |
Legal Framework
The case involves the following key legal provisions:
- Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Relates to rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC:
Addresses murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly. Section 302 of the IPC defines punishment for murder, while Section 149 of the IPC deals with vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC:
Concerns attempt to murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly. Section 307 of the IPC defines the punishment for attempt to murder, while Section 149 of the IPC deals with vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959:
Deals with the punishment for illegal possession of arms.
- Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959:
Relates to the punishment for contravention of license or rule.
These provisions are part of the broader criminal justice system, designed to maintain law and order and punish those who commit crimes. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, is the main criminal code of India, while the Arms Act, 1959, regulates the possession and use of firearms.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- Double Presumption: The appellants argued that in an appeal against acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, and the High Court should not have disturbed the trial court’s findings.
- Credibility of PW-1: They questioned the presence of PW-1 at the scene, citing inconsistencies in his account of the incident, his injuries, and the bullet marks on the jonga. They also highlighted discrepancies in the hospital records and timings of medical examinations.
- Unlawful Assembly: The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object and that there was no evidence to show how two groups of accused gathered at the same place.
- Contradictions in FIR: They pointed out discrepancies between the tehreer and the FIR, as well as the fax message sent by the Superintendent of Police, which contradicted the prosecution’s version of events.
- Recovery of Weapons: The appellants contended that the recovery of weapons was not properly established, with inconsistencies in the type of weapon recovered and the lack of independent witnesses.
- Ballistic Report: They argued that the ballistic report was not admissible as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C.
- Motive: The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the accused to commit the crime.
Prosecution’s Submissions:
- Occurrence of Incident: The prosecution argued that the incident occurred as described in the FIR and that the deaths of the five individuals were not disputed.
- Credibility of Eyewitnesses: They emphasized the reliability of PW-1 and PW-2 as injured eyewitnesses, whose testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence and other documentary evidence.
- Motive: The prosecution highlighted the long-standing rivalry between the Chandel group and the Shukla family as a motive for the crime.
- Reversal of Acquittal: They argued that the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal, as the Trial Court had adopted a super technical approach and ignored crucial evidence.
- Unlawful Assembly: The prosecution submitted that the evidence clearly established the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object to attack the victims.
- Recoveries: The prosecution argued that the recovery of weapons and the Railway Manarth Card was properly established and that the contradictions cited by the appellants were minor and did not affect the case.
- Ballistic Report: The prosecution contended that the ballistic report was admissible as it complied with the statutory requirements.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Prosecution) |
|---|---|---|
| Credibility of PW-1 |
|
|
| Unlawful Assembly |
|
|
| Contradictions in FIR |
|
|
| Recovery of Weapons |
|
|
| Ballistic Report |
|
|
| Motive |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
- Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and reliable.
- Whether the prosecution had proved the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object.
- Whether the recoveries of weapons and other material objects were properly established.
- Whether the ballistic report was admissible as evidence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal. | Yes | The High Court had substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the acquittal due to glaring mistakes by the Trial Court. |
| Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. | Yes | The prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused based on credible eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and other corroborating evidence. |
| Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and reliable. | Yes | The eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were found to be credible and reliable, with their testimonies corroborated by medical evidence and other documentary evidence. |
| Whether the prosecution had proved the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object. | Yes | The prosecution successfully established the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object to attack the victims. |
| Whether the recoveries of weapons and other material objects were properly established. | Yes | The recovery of the 8×60 bore rifle from Sahab Singh and the Railway Manarth Card were properly established. |
| Whether the ballistic report was admissible as evidence. | Yes | The ballistic report was found to be admissible as it complied with the statutory requirements under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. |
Authorities
| Authority | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Chandrappa and Ors v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 (Supreme Court of India) | Jurisdiction of the High Court in appeals against acquittals | Clarified that appellate courts have wide powers to review evidence in appeals against acquittals. |
| M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405 (Supreme Court of India) | Jurisdiction of the High Court in appeals against acquittals | Explained that High Courts can reach their own conclusions on evidence in appeals against acquittals. |
| Ghurey Lal v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450 (Supreme Court of India) | Principles for reversing acquittals | Formulated principles for appellate courts to follow when overruling a trial court’s acquittal. |
| Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra (1973) 3 SCC 219 (Supreme Court of India) | Relevance of Motive | Held that the absence of a proven motive does not affect the credibility of an eyewitness. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal and Others (2008) 16 SCC 73 (Supreme Court of India) | Relevance of Motive | Stated that motive is not important when there is direct evidence of eyewitnesses. |
| Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr (2011) 3 SCC 654 (Supreme Court of India) | Relevance of Motive | Held that absence of motive is inconsequential when the court relies on eyewitness accounts. |
| Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 476 (Supreme Court of India) | Relevance of Motive | Stated that motive cannot take the place of direct evidence. |
| Rammi Alia Rameshwar v. State of M.P (1999) 8 SCC 649 (Supreme Court of India) | Discrepancies in evidence | Explained that minor discrepancies in evidence do not impair the credit of a witness. |
| Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259 (Supreme Court of India) | Injured eyewitness testimony | Held that the testimony of an injured witness is considered reliable. |
| Rajendra Alia Rajappa & Ors v. State of Karnataka (2021) 6 SCC 178 (Supreme Court of India) | Minor Contradictions in testimony | Held that only contradictions in material particulars can discredit the testimony of witnesses. |
| Rana Pratap and ors v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327 (Supreme Court of India) | Behaviour of witnesses | Held that every person reacts differently to a murder, and there is no set rule of natural reaction. |
| Karnel Singh v. State of M.P (1995) 5 SCC 518 (Supreme Court of India) | Defective Investigation | Stated that defective investigation does not automatically result in acquittal. |
| C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 (Supreme Court of India) | Defective Investigation | Held that defective investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal if there is reliable evidence. |
| Amzad Ali Alias Amzad Kha and ors v. State of Assam (2003) 6 SCC 270 (Supreme Court of India) | Unlawful Assembly | Held that prior formation of an unlawful assembly is not necessary for Section 149 IPC. |
| Bhargavan and ors v. State of Kerala (2004) 12 SCC 414 (Supreme Court of India) | Unlawful Assembly | Explained the concept of “common object” in an unlawful assembly. |
| Bhupendra Singh and ors v. State of U.P (2009) 12 SCC 447 (Supreme Court of India) | Unlawful Assembly | Clarified the requirements for establishing an unlawful assembly. |
| Saddik Alias Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh and ors v. State of Gujarat (2016) 10 SCC 663 (Supreme Court of India) | Vicarious Liability | Held that all members of an unlawful assembly need not commit an overt act for vicarious liability. |
| Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar (2021) 9 SCC 191 (Supreme Court of India) | Injured Eyewitnesses | Held that the evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to great weight. |
| M Nageswara Reddy v. State of AP 2022 SCC OnLine SC 268 (Supreme Court of India) | Injured Eyewitnesses | Held that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses has greater reliability and credibility. |
| State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 (Supreme Court of India) | Ballistic Report | Held that a ballistic report signed by a Junior Scientific Officer is valid under Section 293 Cr.P.C. |
| W.H.B. Smith, Mauser Rifles and Pistols (The Stackpole Company, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 4th edn, 1954) | Description of 8×60 mm rifle | Used to clarify that 8×60 mm rifle and 0.315 bore rifle are the same. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission on double presumption in favor of the accused | The Court acknowledged the principle but emphasized that it does not curtail the appellate court’s power to review evidence and correct errors. |
| Appellants’ submission on the credibility of PW-1 | The Court rejected this submission, finding PW-1 to be a credible and reliable eyewitness whose testimony was corroborated by medical and other evidence. |
| Appellants’ submission on the formation of unlawful assembly | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object. |
| Appellants’ submission on contradictions in the FIR | The Court rejected this submission, finding the discrepancies to be minor and not affecting the case’s credibility. The fax message was not considered reliable. |
| Appellants’ submission on the recovery of weapons | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the recovery of the 8×60 bore rifle was properly established and that it is the same as 0.315 bore rifle. |
| Appellants’ submission on the ballistic report | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the ballistic report was admissible under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. |
| Appellants’ submission on the lack of motive | The Court noted that while a motive was established, it is not necessary when there is direct evidence from eyewitnesses. |
| Prosecution’s submission on the occurrence of the incident | The Court accepted this submission, finding that the incident occurred as described in the FIR. |
| Prosecution’s submission on the credibility of eyewitnesses | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the eyewitnesses were credible and reliable. |
| Prosecution’s submission on the reversal of acquittal | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal due to its glaring mistakes. |
| Prosecution’s submission on the unlawful assembly | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object. |
| Prosecution’s submission on the recoveries | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the recovery of weapons and the Railway Manarth Card were properly established. |
| Prosecution’s submission on the ballistic report | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the ballistic report was admissible as evidence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Chandrappa and Ors v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: Used to clarify the appellate court’s powers in reviewing evidence.
- M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: Used to explain that High Courts can reach their own conclusions on evidence.
- Ghurey Lal v. State of UP [CITATION]: Used to formulate principles for appellate courts when overruling trial court acquittals.
- Shivaji Genu Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: Used to emphasize that the lack of a proven motive does not affect the credibility of an eyewitness.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal and Others [CITATION]: Used to state that motive is not important when there is direct evidence.
- Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr [CITATION]: Used to hold that the absence of motive is irrelevant when there is eyewitness testimony.
- Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: Used to state that motive cannot replace direct evidence.
- Rammi Alia Rameshwar v. State of M.P [CITATION]: Used to explain that minor discrepancies do not impair a witness’s credit.
- Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: Used to support the reliability of an injured witness’s testimony.
- Rajendra Alia Rajappa & Ors v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: Used to emphasize that only material contradictions can discredit a witness.
- Rana Pratap and ors v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: Used to explain that there is no set rule for how a witness should react to a murder.
- Karnel Singh v. State of M.P [CITATION]: Used to state that defective investigation does not automatically result in acquittal.
- C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu [CITATION]: Used to hold that defective investigation is not a ground for acquittal if there is reliable evidence.
- Amzad Ali Alias Amzad Kha and ors v. State of Assam [CITATION]: Used to hold that prior formation of an unlawful assembly is not necessary for Section 149 of the IPC.
- Bhargavan and ors v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: Used to explain the concept of “common object” in an unlawful assembly.
- Bhupendra Singh and ors v. State of U.P [CITATION]: Used to clarify the requirements for establishing an unlawful assembly.
- Saddik Alias Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh and ors v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: Used to hold that all members of an unlawful assembly need not commit an overt act for vicarious liability.
- Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: Used to hold that the evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to great weight.
- M Nageswara Reddy v. State of AP [CITATION]: Used to hold that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses has greater reliability and credibility.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram [CITATION]: Used to hold that a ballistic report signed by a Junior Scientific Officer is valid under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C.
- W.H.B. Smith, Mauser Rifles and Pistols [CITATION]: Used to clarify that the 8×60 mm rifle and 0.315 bore rifle are the same.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the following factors:
- Credibility of Injured Eyewitnesses: The Court placed significant weight on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, who were injured during the incident. Their presence at the scene was corroborated by medical evidence and their accounts were consistent with the facts.
- Errors by the Trial Court: The Court found that the Trial Court made several glaring mistakes, including misreading evidence, drawing speculative conclusions, and adopting a super-technical approach.
- Corroborative Evidence: The Court noted that the eyewitness testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence, ballistic reports, and recovery of weapons.
- Unlawful Assembly: The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object to attack the victims.
- Relevance of Motive: While a motive was established, the Court emphasized that it is not essential when there is direct evidence.
The Court’s reasoning was driven by a desire to correct the errors of the Trial Court and ensure that justice was served.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Credibility of Eyewitnesses | 30% |
| Errors by the Trial Court | 25% |
| Corroborative Evidence | 20% |
| Unlawful Assembly | 15% |
| Relevance of Motive | 10% |
Final Order
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the accused. The Court found that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentences awarded by the High Court were also upheld.
Raghuvir Singh (A1): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Ashutosh (A2): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Uttam (A3): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Pradeep (A4): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel (A5): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Naseem (A6): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Shyam Singh (A7): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.
Sahab Singh (A8): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges. Also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment.
Bhan Singh (A10): Convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC, and Section 148 IPC. Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges.