Case Analysis by: Isha Raje
Date of Judgement:25 February 2021
Bench: J. UU Lalit. J. Indira Banerjee, J. KM Joseph
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2007
Introduction:
Murder is defined as the intentional killing of a person without reason. The purpose should be malicious in character. In accordance with section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, if a death is committed with the purpose of causing death, it is murder rather than culpable homicide, and by section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, anybody found guilty of murder faces the death penalty or a lifetime in prison as well as a fine. In situations involving murder, several verdicts are rendered in India.
The appeal was filed on behalf of Devilal, the son of Chetran Gujar, and his two sons, Gokul and Amrat Ram, and was made in response to the High Court's decision and order in Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1999, which was given on September 14, 2006.
The appellants were charged in Special Offense Case No. 88 of 1998 in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST), at Mandsaur, M.P., together with Gattubai, the accused Devilal's wife. This case was brought under sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Facts:
The appellants in this case, DeviLal and his sons Gokul and Amrat Ram, appealed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's decision to try the appellant and his sons for a particular offence to the Supreme Court. Ganeshram filed an FIR in this instance.
Aneshram was assaulted by Devilal, Gokul, and Amrat Ram using a Kulkarni, talwar, and lathi. He was then escorted to the police station where he filed an official police report before being transferred to the district hospital. In addition to being unable to talk and having low blood pressure, the victim's health was not good. Ganeshram, the victim, passed away around midnight. An autopsy was then performed, and his interior and exterior wounds were examined. It was said that severe bleeding was the cause of death.
Following an initial inquiry, accused DeviLal, Gokul, and Amrat Ram were detained, and the appellants, together with accused Devilal's wife Gattubai, were tried in a specific criminal case. After reviewing all of the evidence on record, including medical records and eyewitness statements, the trial court determined that the FIR recorded at the instance could be relied on as the dying declaration. The prosecution proved the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused DeviLal, Gokul, and Amrat Ram, but not against the fourth accused Gattubai, DeviLal's wife, and none of the accused was found guilty under offences punishable under Section 34 IPC.
Then an appeal was filed with the High Court, where it was argued that in light of the medical documentation, the deceased was unable to have provided any statements to the police that might have formed the foundation of an FIR. However, the court rejected the arguments and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the defendants DeviLal, Gokul, and Amrat Ram in its verdict from September 14, 2006, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. According to a court judgment dated 8 April 2009, the defendants DeviLal and Gokul were also freed on bail after serving a total of nine years and four months in jail. A petition was submitted, among other things, stating that the accused Amrat Lal was a minor at the time the offense was committed and claimed juvenile status. According to an investigation and report were given to the honourable court, Amrat Ram was 16 years, 11 months, and 26 days old when the offense was committed. According to the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act of 2000, the age of juvenility was increased to 18 years, therefore he wasn't a minor as defined by the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986, which set the age of juvenility for male juveniles at 16 years. Amrat Ram should be fined the appropriate amount, which will be decided by the Jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling finding the appellants guilty was correct?
2. Is it correct to say that Amrit Lal, the appellant, was a major under the JJ Act of 1986 but a minor under the JJ Act of 2000?
The contention of the Petitioner:
· Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, stated that it is inconceivable to assume that Ganeshram could have made any reporting to the police because his condition was not so good and the FIR was registered more than three hours after the act was done.
· He also claimed that the witnesses were tutored, which Sajan Bai, the primary witness, agreed with.
· Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, stated that the prosecution witness 7 Laxminarayan admitted when cross-examined that the front of Devilal's house where the offense was committed was not visible to the supposed eyewitnesses.
The Contention of the Respondent:
· The evidence of Prosecution Witness 9, Dr Kothari, demonstrates that Ganeshram was alive when the initial examination was conducted, according to Mr Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Advocate for the State. According to the witness, when the doctor checked Ganeshram, his blood pressure could not be determined; nevertheless, this does not mean that he could not submit a statement to the police two hours earlier. The report plainly stated that the person's inability to talk is only an expert's opinion, and there is no report on the symptoms that he was unable to speak soon after the event or after the FIR was filed.
· The learned Advocate Mr Harmeet Singh Ruprah for the State, stated that the testimony of Prosecution witnesses 1 and 2, Sajan Bai and Saman Bai, are fairly coherent, and their presence was taken right from the first stage of reporting the crime, although the distance was just 100 feet from their house to DeviLal's, and no cross-examination was conducted on this.
· According to Mr Harmeet Singh Ruprah, a learned Advocate for the State, firearms have also been found.
· The involvement of PW1-Sajan Bai and PW2-Saman Bai was mentioned in the FIR, according to Mr Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Advocate for the State. The testimony of both of these witnesses establishes that the appellants began an assault on Ganeshram, which resulted in his death. PW1- Sajan Bai's claim that her prior testimony collected during the investigation was read to her does not imply that she was coached to pursue the route of prosecution. It is worth noting that no such inquiries were posed to PW2-Saman Bai. Even if the evidence of PW1-Sajan Bai is excluded from consideration, the evidence of PW2-Saman Bai, together with Ganeshram's deathbed declaration, totally wraps up the case against the appellants.
Judgment:
In this instance, the court upholds the conclusions reached by lower courts and declares the appellants guilty of the murder offense for which they were held accountable. Therefore, their appeal was denied. The court further held that the dying declaration of Ganeshram and the testimony of his sister-in-law Saman Bai, as well as the discovery of the lathi, axe, and sword used in the murder, were sufficient to establish the prosecution's case against the appellants, even if the testimony of the first main witness Sajan Bai (the wife of the deceased) were disregarded. According to sections 34, 302, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences for the two defendants, Devilal and Gokul, stayed the same and included a fine in addition to a lifelong sentence of imprisonment. As the age of a juvenile was raised from 16 to 18 in the JJ Act of 2000, the appellant Amrat Ram's lifetime sentence was overturned and the issue was sent to the jurisdictional juvenile justice board for determination of the proper amount of fine to be imposed on him.
The decision was made after citing several earlier rulings, including Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, in which the juvenile justice problem was initially addressed, and Jitendra Singh v. State of UP, in which the juvenile justice board was assigned to handle the matter. Finally, As Devilal and Gokul were granted bail by this court decision dated 8 April 2009, they were instructed to appear in person before the relevant police station within two weeks. This was announced by the bench on February 25, 2021. If they don't, their bail bond will be lost, and the police will then arrest them to carry out the penalty. The appeal was rejected in the manner already mentioned.
Precedents mentioned in the Case:
· Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan[i]
· Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand[ii]
· Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)[iii]
· Kalu v. State of Haryana[iv]
· Jitendra Singh v. State of U. P[v]
Case Analysis:
In this case, we analysed the ratio decidendi and arguments of the Supreme Court, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and Trial Court by Sections 34, 302, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Juvenile Justice Act 1986, as well as Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000. Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 provided justice to Amrat Ram since the age of a juvenile under the Act of 1986 was raised from 16 to 18 under the Act of 2000. As a result of this change, an inquiry was launched into this matter in 2018, and it was determined that Amrat was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act 2020 at the time of the crime.
Focusing on an analysis of the overall circumstances of the case, and considering the chain of circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution and noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, the charge is insufficient and incoherent to allow the conviction of the appellants that basis without a shadow of a doubt. Though the documents on file are suspect, the prosecution has failed to move its case from the domain of "may be true" to the realm of "must be true," as is needed by law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is commonplace to say that in a criminal prosecution, suspicion, no matter how serious, cannot substitute for proof.
This remarkable and noteworthy verdict by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which includes the serving CJI Ranjan Gogoi, sends a very loud and clear message to all courts that "suspicion, however severe, can't replace for proof in criminal proceedings." It must be obeyed in letter and spirit by all courts. There should be no deviations. Furthermore, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt.
Conclusion:
In this case, Devilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the offense stemmed from a caste dispute, and the accused Devilal, together with his two sons, severely injured Ganeshram, who eventually died. The case was initially heard in a trial court, then in the High Court, which issued a verdict of life imprisonment. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction of Devilal and his elder son Gokul, while Amrat Ram's case was assigned to the Juvenile Board. I completely concur with the decision. Following the JJ Act of 2000, the third accused was moved to the juvenile jurisdiction board since he was a juvenile at the time of the crime. The sentences of life imprisonment and a fine were imposed by the sections and clauses of the Indian Penal Code. In my opinion, judgment is important.
References:
[1] Hari Ram vs State of Rajasthan (1998) 236 (SC)
[2]Pratap Singh v State of Jharkhand (2005) 6 1 (SCC (J))
[3] Dharambir v State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 5 344 (SCC)
[4] Kalu v State of Haryana (2012) 8 34 (SCC)
[5] Jitendra Singh v State of UP (2013) 11 193 (SCC)