Supreme Court Upholds Right to Private Defence in Double Murder Case: Arvind Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (22 November 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a flawed police investigation and suppression of facts lead to the acquittal of accused persons in a double murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the complexities of private defence and the importance of fair investigation in criminal trials. This case involves a long-standing property dispute that escalated into violence, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The court scrutinized the evidence, the conduct of the investigation, and the application of relevant legal principles to determine whether the accused were justified in their actions.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment. Justice M.M. Sundresh authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between Surjaram and Ladduram over a pathway. Surjaram claimed the pathway as his own, while Ladduram and other prosecution witnesses used it to access their lands. Surjaram had obtained a stay order in a revision petition and constructed a wall blocking the pathway. This obstruction prevented Ladduram and others from accessing their lands. On 18th July 1989, a panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute. However, the situation escalated when Surjaram and about 25 others allegedly attacked Ladduram and others in the early hours of the morning.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with weapons, attacked Ladduram, who was sleeping in his courtyard, and also dragged and attacked Mohan and Brijender, who were sleeping nearby. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, many of whom were relatives of the deceased. The accused, on the other hand, claimed private defence, asserting that they were attacked first.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, seven individuals were charged, with five being convicted by the trial court, and two acquitted. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one more accused, confirming the conviction of the other four. Subsequently, further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) led to the addition of ten more accused. In the second trial, four were convicted, one was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, and five were acquitted. The High Court, on appeal, dismissed the appeals against acquittal but allowed the appeals of the convicted accused. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court through appeals from both the accused and the de facto complainant.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the IPC: This section deals with the concept of constructive or vicarious liability, stating that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.
• Sections 96 to 102 of the IPC: These sections outline the right of private defence, which allows individuals to use necessary force to protect themselves or others from harm.
• Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section allows for further investigation even after a police report has been filed.

The court also considered the concept of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as defined under Section 299 of the IPC, and the distinction between intention and knowledge in the context of criminal acts.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a fair investigation is paramount, and that the investigating officer is expected to be an officer of the court, seeking truth and assisting the court to arrive at a correct conclusion. The court also noted that a defective investigation does not automatically benefit the accused, unless it is fundamental and goes to the root of the prosecution’s case.

Arguments

On behalf of the Accused:

• The accused argued that they acted in private defence, which was not properly considered by the lower courts.
• They highlighted the delay in registering the FIR and the lack of explanation for this delay.
• The FIR was alleged to be ante-dated, and the injury reports did not mention the FIR number.
• The accused pointed out that the investigation was flawed, with no proper inquiry into the motive, and the site plan was incorrect.
• They argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested parties and that their testimonies were contradictory.
• The conditions for invoking Section 149 of the IPC were not met, and at most, it was a case of a sudden fight.
• The recovery of weapons was not proven, and no independent witnesses were examined.
• The medical evidence did not match the ocular evidence, as the injuries were primarily lacerated and not incised.
• The High Court’s decision to acquit some accused was correct and should be extended to all.

On behalf of the de facto complainant and the State:

• The complainant argued that the findings of fact by the lower courts should not be interfered with.
• They contended that the evidence of family members should not be disbelieved merely due to their relationship with the deceased.
• Specific overt acts were attributed to some of the accused, and the multiple injuries supported the prosecution’s case.
• A defective investigation should not benefit the accused, and a mere delay in filing the FIR is not a ground for acquittal.
• The plea of private defence and sudden fight are contradictory, and the presence of the other accused was sufficient to attract Section 149 IPC.
• Discrepancies in evidence do not make the prosecution’s version false, and the delay in sending the FIR was not substantial.
• The High Court erred in its factual findings regarding the evidence of some witnesses.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the investigation was fair and impartial.
2. Whether the accused persons acted in private defence.
3. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the High Court erred in acquitting some of the accused while upholding the conviction of others.
5. Whether Section 149 of the IPC was correctly applied.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Private Defence:

• Kashiram v. State of M.P., (2002) 1 SCC 71 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the burden of proof in private defence, stating that the accused need only show a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It also emphasizes that the plea of private defence can be taken through cross-examination, statements under Section 313 CrPC, or even during submissions.
• Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 – Supreme Court of India: This case highlights the importance of explaining injuries on the accused. If the prosecution fails to explain substantial injuries on the accused, it can lead to an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of events.

On Fair Investigation:

• Kumar v. State, (2018) 7 SCC 536 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasizes the duty of the investigating authority to conduct a fair investigation without suppressing facts.

On Section 149 IPC:

• Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 16 SCC 752 – Supreme Court of India: This case explains that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly unless it is shown that they had a common unlawful object.
• Baladin v. State of U.P. [AIR 1956 SC 181 : 1956 Cri LJ 345] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of the unlawful assembly, unless it is shown that he had done or omitted to do something which would show that he was a member of the unlawful assembly.
• Masalti v. State of U.P. [AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226] – Supreme Court of India: This case explained that cases in which persons who are merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly out of curiosity, without sharing the common object of the assembly stood on a different footing.

On Falsus in Uno- Falsus in Omnibus:

• Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the principle of sifting the chaff from the grain, noting that when evidence is inseparable and unreliable, it should be rejected.
• Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand [Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 427] – Supreme Court of India: This case observed that when the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence.

Other Cases:

• Vishvas Aba Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 1 SCC 474 – Supreme Court of India: (Mentioned by the complainant, but not explicitly discussed in detail by the court)
• Lalji v. State of U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437 – Supreme Court of India: (Mentioned by the complainant, but not explicitly discussed in detail by the court)
• State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel, (1996) 8 SCC 167 – Supreme Court of India: (Mentioned by the complainant, but not explicitly discussed in detail by the court)
• Kripal Singh v State of Rajasthan (2019) 5 SCC 646 – Supreme Court of India: (Mentioned by the complainant, but not explicitly discussed in detail by the court)
• State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 744 – Supreme Court of India: (Mentioned by the accused, but not explicitly discussed in detail by the court)

Legal Provisions:

• Section 96 to Section 102 IPC: These sections outline the right of private defence, which allows individuals to use necessary force to protect themselves or others from harm.
• Section 149 of the IPC: This section deals with the concept of constructive or vicarious liability, stating that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section allows for further investigation even after a police report has been filed.
• Section 299 of the IPC: This section defines culpable homicide.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kashiram v. State of M.P., (2002) 1 SCC 71* – The Court followed this authority, reiterating that the burden of proof for private defence is based on a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394* – The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of explaining injuries on the accused. The failure to do so was considered a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case.
• Kumar v. State, (2018) 7 SCC 536* – The Court used this case to highlight the duty of the investigating authority to conduct a fair investigation without suppressing facts.
• Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 16 SCC 752* – The Court applied this ruling to clarify that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly unless there is a common unlawful object.
• Baladin v. State of U.P. [AIR 1956 SC 181 : 1956 Cri LJ 345]* – The Court relied on this case to emphasize that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of the unlawful assembly, unless it is shown that he had done or omitted to do something which would show that he was a member of the unlawful assembly.
• Masalti v. State of U.P. [AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226]* – The Court relied on this case to explain that cases in which persons who are merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly out of curiosity, without sharing the common object of the assembly stood on a different footing.
• Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50* – The Court used this case to discuss the principle of sifting the chaff from the grain, noting that when evidence is inseparable and unreliable, it should be rejected.
• Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand [Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 427]* – The Court relied on this case to observe that when the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Suppression of Facts: The court noted the deliberate suppression of material facts by the investigating officers, particularly the injuries suffered by the accused and the circumstances surrounding the FIR registration.
• Flawed Investigation: The investigation was deemed unfair, with no proper inquiry into the motive, and the site plan was found to be contradictory.
• Unreliable Witnesses: The prosecution witnesses were considered unreliable due to inconsistencies, contradictions, and their status as interested parties.
• Private Defence: The court found the plea of private defence to be plausible, especially given the injuries suffered by the accused and the lack of explanation from the prosecution.
• Lack of Common Object: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a common unlawful object, making Section 149 IPC inapplicable.
• Medical Evidence: The medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version of events, with injuries primarily being lacerated rather than incised.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual discrepancies and the lack of a fair investigation, with a slightly higher emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the clear evidence of a flawed investigation and the plausible plea of private defence. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this instance.

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

• The investigation was not conducted fairly, with deliberate suppression of facts.
• The prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by the accused.
• The prosecution witnesses were unreliable and their testimonies were contradictory.
• The plea of private defence was plausible and not disproven.
• The prosecution failed to establish a common unlawful object for the application of Section 149 IPC.
• The medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version of events.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“A fair investigation would become a colourable one when there involves a suppression. Suppressing the motive, injuries and other existing factors which will have the effect of modifying or altering the charge would amount to a perfunctory investigation and, therefore, become a false narrative.”

“The concept of acting in excess has to be seen from the point of view of continued existence of the apprehension of danger. When the apprehension getsover, the right of private defence also gets extinguished. It is not a case where the right of private defence was exceeded, but rather that the right was available to the accused.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused and dismissed the appeals filed by the de facto complainant and the State. The court set aside the convictions of the accused persons. The court held that the accused persons were entitled to the right of private defence and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ordered the accused to be released forthwith if they were not required in any other case.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused persons and dismissed the appeals filed by the de facto complainant and the State of Rajasthan. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the accused were acquitted. They were ordered to be released forthwith if they were not required in any other case.

Implications

This judgment has several important implications:

• Right to Private Defence: The judgment reinforces the importance of the right to private defence, particularly in cases where the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused. It clarifies that the burden of proof for private defence is based on a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Fair Investigation: The judgment highlights the crucial role of a fair and impartial investigation. It emphasizes that the investigating officer is an officer of the court and has a duty to seek the truth, not to suppress facts. A flawed investigation can be grounds for acquittal, especially when it goes to the root of the prosecution’s case.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is not required to prove their innocence. The failure to explain key aspects of the case, such as injuries on the accused, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Application of Section 149 IPC: The judgment clarifies that mere presence in an assembly is not sufficient to invoke Section 149 IPC. There must be evidence of a common unlawful object.
• Sifting Evidence: The court emphasized the principle of sifting the chaff from the grain, noting that when evidence is inseparable and unreliable, it should be rejected.
• Importance of Medical Evidence: The judgment underscores the importance of medical evidence in corroborating the ocular evidence. Discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case.

The judgment serves as a reminder to investigating agencies to conduct thorough and impartial investigations and to the courts to carefully scrutinize the evidence and arguments presented by both sides before arriving at a conclusion.