Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter : Supreme Court.

                          

 Dr. DY Chandrachud and  MR Shah, Hon’ble Justices of the Supreme Court of India, strongly termed the judgment and order of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as having lack of sustainability, clarity. The Hon’ble Justices expressed pain in noting that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court granting bail to the accused pending appeal lack total clarity in  regard to  the  submissions and finding/reasons.

The Court observed after going through the order, that it does not contain the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal.

Putting emphasis on the importance of judgment, purpose of judgment and content of judgment, the Apex Court disapproved the manner in which the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C was disposed  of.

            In the present case, the widow (appellant)  of deceased approached the Supreme Court, feeling aggrieved by  the impugned judgment and order of the High Court where the Court granted bail to the respondents/accused pending appeal in serious case involving murder, criminal conspiracy, common object and causing disappearance of evidence.

After hearing the appellant’s counsel and private respondent’s counsel at length, the Hon’ble Supreme Court   approved the submissions of the appellant’s counsel that the High Court’s  judgment and order has gross error. The High Court did not appreciate and consider  the facts and evidences collected before convicting the accused to life imprisonment  under Sections 302/ 149, 201 r/w 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860.

MAJOR SHORTCOMINGS OF THE  JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT

§  The High Court failed to note the circumstances under which from the very beginning efforts were made to delay/derail the investigation.

§  The High Court has not appreciated the conduct on the part of the accused pending investigation and even during trial. The Trial Court observed while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedly to the prosecution witnesses and villages and threatened them if they give evidence against the accused suffer the dire consequences.

§  The High Court has  not considered the two FIRs filed during trial for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 against the accused for giving threats to the complainant side and others. The high Court has casually observed that the two offences under section 504 and 506 to be simple in nature.

§  The High Court has casually observed that the two FIRs filed during trial for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 for threatening the complainant side and others to be of simple nature whereas they can be said to be a very serious offence.

§  The High Court has not considered the gravity of accusation, accused’s antecedent and conduct during trial and even thereafter. The High Court granted  bail pending appeal when they have undergone only 8 months sentence against the life sentence imposed by the learned trial Court.

§  The High Court has not considered the evidence on the basis of the learned trial court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.

Because of  the above reasons, the Apex Court termed the impugned judgment as unsustainable. The Court emphasized on the fact that once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore the High Court should be very slow while granting bail to the accused pending appeal who are convicted for the serious offence.

It is also to note here that the learned trial court had also convicted both the investigating officer, for  deliberately saving the accused on the basis of the false fact that the deceased under the influence of liquor, while going to his paramour’s house fell into the well, and died by drowning, whereas the post mortem report showed  no symptoms of death by drowning; and

 the doctor for he deliberately mentioned in the wrong reason for death i.e. death by drowning in order to save the doctor  for which he was convicted under section 201 r/w 120B (giving  false information to screen offender,  criminal conspiracy) and 218 (and public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save a person from punishment) of IPC,        

The Court therefore directed the Respondents to surrender immediately to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment, imposed by the trial court failing which the trial court shall issue warrant of arrest against them.

 

Fact:

The Appellant’s  husband was  murdered in 1995 when he was coming back from a village and thereafter his body was thrown in the well. During the investigation by the CB-CID, the names of the respondents/accused came to light and the prosecution was able to prove on appreciation of evidence more particularly the evidence of last seen. The learned trial court convicted them in 2018.

Case:

Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021)

Date of Judgment: 7.09.2021.