Punajb and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punajb and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail under Sections 22, 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, Jasjit Singh Bedi, J, reiterating the observations made by various Courts including the Supreme Court on the mandatory compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act by the concerned authority (in this case, the police), enlarged the petitioner-accused on bail. The Court observed that,

“Violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act would entitle the accused to the grant of bail even if the recovery is of commercial quantity of contraband”

The brief facts of the case are that a secret informer informed the police about the accused-petitioner’s habitual selling of intoxicating tablets and it was further informed by him that the accused-petitioner was going to sell the tablets to his customers arriving in a white colour Activa scooter on the side of the drain bridge at Bathinda road. Founding the information reliable, a ruqa was sent to the police station concerned for registering the FIR against the accused-petitioner. During the course of investigation the check post was installed and the accused-petitioner was apprehended and 2000 strips, each strip containing 10 tablets i.e. 20,000 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride labeled as Radol-100 were recovered from him. During the interrogation, he disclosed the names of co accused persons in the present case.

The counsel for the accused applicant made a submission that since no communication of the secret information received was sent to the superior officer within 72 hours and no reasons were recorded as to why warrants/authorization could not be obtained prior to conducting the raid/setting up of a naka after sunset, the search and seizure was completely vitiated as Section 42 of the NDPS Act has been violated and the mandatory provisions of the act would entitle the accused-petitioner to the grant of bail even if the recovery is of commercial quantity of contraband.

The counsel for the state on the other hand contended that since the plastic bag containing the intoxicating tablets had fallen on the ground and when the active scooter slipped it could not be said that the contraband was kept or concealed in any conveyance and, therefore, Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. He further contended that due to heavy recovery being effected from the accused-petitioner, he could not be enlarged on bail.

The Court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, wherein it was held that delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can still be countenanced but total non-compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) is impermissible, etc. On finding that the secret information was never received in writing, the Court held that there has been complete non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.

The Court, hence, recorded a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail as he has clean antecedents. He was, hence, directed to be released on bail.

[Pankaj v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 1296, decided on 14-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner;

Punjab Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondent.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Explaining the principles of sentencing policy, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that while there are practical difficulties in achieving absolute consistency in regards to sentencing, the awarding of just and proportionate sentence remains the solemn duty of the Courts and they should not be swayed by nonrelevant factors while deciding the quantum of sentence.

Principle of proportionality

Explaining the principle of proportionality, the Court said that this principle of commensurate sentencing treats offenders as agents capable of evaluating their own illegal conduct and the social censure associated with it, which is communicated to them by imposing a proportionate sentence. The exercise for assessing ‘proportionality’ is thus dependent upon the gravity of the offence which is determined according to –

(a) mischief caused or risk involved in the offense;

(b) the overall conduct of the offender and;

(c) motives ascribed to the felon.

The Court also stressed upon the guarantee of even-handedness before the law(s), as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and said that the equality of treatment so as to eliminate discriminatory practices in the award of sentencing, is integral to the canons of proportionality.

It, however, clarified that,

“… we cannot be incognizant of the fact that there are practical difficulties in achieving absolute consistency in regards to sentencing. It must be candidly acknowledged that there is an element of discretion present while adjudicating the issue of sentence, however, the same cannot be exercised in an unprincipled manner. This Court has explicitly ruled out the practice of awarding disproportionate sentences, especially those that showcase undue leniency, for it would undermine the public confidence in efficacy of law.”

What should the Courts do? 

Noticing that the sentencing policy keeps pace with changing time, the Court said that the primary emphasis while deciding the quantum of sentence should lie on the gravity or penal value of the offense. However, other guiding elements of rehabilitative justice model, including, appreciation of grounds for mitigation of sentence also deserve to be duly considered within the permissible limits of judicial discretion.

“The awarding of just and proportionate sentence remains the solemn duty of the Courts and they should not be swayed by nonrelevant factors while deciding the quantum of sentence. Naturally, what factors should be considered as ‘relevant’ or ‘non-relevant’ will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no straight jacket formula can be laid down for the same.”

[Surinder Singh v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1135, decided on 26.11.2021]


*Judgment by: Justice Surya Kant

Know Thy Judge | Justice Surya Kant


Also read:

Explained| Is ‘motive’ an indispensable ingredient for proving the charge of attempt to murder?

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court of India: The Division Bench of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., reiterated the value of ocular evidence while reversing the acquittal of the accused.

Instant appeal arose from an acquittal order reversing the conviction of respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 302, 34, 120 B of the Penal Code, 1860 sentencing them to life imprisonment and 15 days imprisonment under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

The deceased was assaulted while he was returning on a motorcycle with PW-2 who was the pillion rider.

Acquittal was premised on the reasoning that the evidence of the eye-witnesses PW-2 and PW-10 was inconsistent with the medical evidence, regarding the nature of injuries vis-à-vis the weapons of offence.

High Court erred in the appreciation of evidence by failing to take note that the iron rod had a sharp edge by which the injuries on the deceased were possible. It is only if the medical evidence was totally inconsistent with the ocular evidence, the former was to be given precedence.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench stated that it was not disputed that PW-2 who was accompanying the deceased on the motorcycle, took him to the hospital.

FIR was lodged barely hours later naming the respondents. There was no time for the witness to consider and ponder for naming the accused except to state the truth.

The respondents were not strangers, but were well known to PW­2 and the deceased. PW­12 deposed that the respondents had threatened the deceased earlier also and were compelling him to withdraw the case and would also demand money from him because of which the deceased had shifted from the locality where they all they lived earlier.

Court stated that there is evidence about the availability of light near the place of occurrence. Even otherwise, that there may not have been any source of light was hardly considered relevant in view of the fact that the parties were known to each other from earlier.

Bench expressed that, Criminal jurisprudence developed in this country recognizes that the eye sight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks. Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also. 

Court relied on Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238 with regard to the identification in the dark.

Supreme Court expressed that it is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

In the present matter, Court found no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence.

High Court grossly erred in appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion

The acquittal by the High Court was based on misappreciation of the evidence and the overlooking of relevant evidence thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion.

Further, the Court stated that the present case was not where two views were possible or the credibility of the witnesses was in doubt. Neither was it a case of a solitary uncorroborated witness.

Conclusion of the High Court was therefore held to be perverse and irrational.

Therefore, in the nature of the assault, Section 304 Part II, IPC has no application.

Supreme Court directed respondents 1 to 3 to surrender within 2 weeks and Director General of Police, State of Gujarat shall take all necessary steps to apprehend the absconding, fourth accused and bring him to justice.

In view of the above, appeal was allowed. [Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 493, decided on 26-07-2021]

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: The Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekar and Deepak Roshan, JJ. dismissed a petition on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the appellant.

The present prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence where there was no eye-witness to the actual occurrence in which the deceased (Birsu Oraon) was killed. And the Additional Judicial Commissioner held that the circumstances brought on record “make him believe” that the accused-appellant has caused the death of Birsu Oraon. The facts of the case being Birsu Oraon had gone to observe paddy crop, who was found dead by his brother, who later informed the villagers who rushed to the jungle. The witness-Chandari Kumari has deposed in the court that the accused-appellant and the deceased-Birsu Oraon had gone to Tand. Wife of the deceased has also spoken on similar lines.

Amrita Banerjee, the Amicus had raised two-fold contentions that (i) the circumstances referred by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, do not complete the chain of circumstances so as to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code and (ii) suspicion howsoever strong cannot be a substitute for the legal evidence so as to convict an accused, more particularly, in a serious offence like murder. The case of Navaneethakrishnan v. State, (2018) 16 SCC 161 was referred to, to contend that the incriminating circumstances must be clearly established by the reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which it can be safely inferred that it was the accused and accused alone who has committed the crime. On the other hand, Arun Kumar Pandey, the APP had contended that once the accused has failed to explain satisfactorily the incriminating circumstances put to him in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, that he was last seen together with the deceased-Birsu Oraon, and he has failed to lead any evidence to establish. And that the circumstances brought on record “make him believe” that the accused-appellant has caused the death of Birsu Oraon.

The Court held that “the only circumstance which has been proved by the prosecution is that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. This may be one of the circumstances, but not the only circumstance on the basis of which an accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The law assumes that when a man is last seen in the company of the accused and soon thereafter his dead body has been recovered it may be the accused who has committed the crime, but then, if the accused has offered an explanation what has happened thereafter, he has discharged his onus. To hold that an accused must answer each and every incriminating circumstance during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, would be against the basic principle in law. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the appellant”. The Court appreciated the efforts of Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus who had prepared notes on the prosecution evidence and ably assisted the Court arguing this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant.[Chari Oraon v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 544, decided on 04-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Vipin Sinha and Ifaqat Ali Khan, JJ. dismissed the appeal as the applicant failed to prove the alleged charges against the accused.

The applicant through his counsel Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani has filed an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment by means of which all the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 394/34, 302/34, 201, 120B and 411 IPC along with Section 25/5/35 Arms Act. He has stated that along with the body of the deceased silver ornaments were also found at the spot.

It was important to note that the silver ornaments costed about Rs 5,000 which was a very meagre amount to commit murder plus neither the court could find a reason as to why the accused would commit the murder along with the fact that no active participation of the accused could be proved.

The High Court stated that a witness could lie but not the circumstances and in this case chain of pieces of evidence furnished by those circumstances were far from complete which failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Here the Court reiterated the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence according to which if two views were possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt a view which is favorable to the accused. Hence as the applicant failed to prove the charges against the accused the appeal was dismissed. [Mira Devi v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 3307, Order dated 04-07-2018]