False implication

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Throwing a wider net

False implication

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Record showed that for the single deceased of this case, the complainant party implicated total ten (10) accused persons in this case (eight accused with the allegation that they were present at the spot at the relevant time and participated in the occurrence, whereas two accused were implicated with the allegation of abetment)

Said fact showed that a wider-net was used by the complainant party against different innocent persons

Most of the accused were declared innocent during the police investigation and all the remaining accused except the petitioner had also been acquitted by the Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons sought review of the judgment passed by Supreme Court maintaining conviction and sentence awarded to them

Held, that there was nothing on record to show that accused persons belonged to any proscribed / terrorist organization

None of the prosecution witnesses stated that accused persons were members of any proscribed / terrorist organizations

Complainant failed to produce any proof that accused persons belonged to banned organization

Material facts / evidence were overlooked and could not be properly appreciated at the time of pronouncement of judgment under review, which resulted into grave miscarriage of justice to accused persons

Supreme Court could review its judgment for any sufficient reasons and there were many sufficient reasons to review judgment in question

Supreme Court reviewed its judgment and set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons who were acquitted of the charge while giving them benefit of doubt

Review petition was allowed.

Concession of pre-arrest bail was an extra ordinary relief, which was meant only for innocent persons, where intended arrest of accused was found to be actuated with malafide on the part of complainant or police

There was no malice or ulterior motive on the part of complainant / police to falsely implicate present accused, who was not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail

Pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Motive is a double-edged weapon, which can be used either way and by either side i.e. for real or false involvement in a case.

Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village

Record showed that the case of accused "Z"was not at par with the case of the remaining two co-convicts being their father

Possibility of his false implication in the case in order to spread the net wide, could not be ruled out for more than one reasons

Firstly, said accused was shown armed with rifle but during investigation, the recovery of stain-gun was shown at his instance, which remained inconsequential

Secondly, no crime empty of stain-gun was recovered and secured from the place of occurrence

Thirdly, the fire shot attributed to the said accused on the person of deceased was found to be lower to upwards trajectory as against the ocular version showing that the deceased was standing in front of the said accused in the street at a close range

Ocular account was not in consonance with the medical evidence to that extent

In that view of the matter, prosecution evidence was doubtful to the extent of the said accused

Implication of the said accused, being father of the principal accused, seemed to be doubtful in order to spread the net wide

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused "Z" beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction of said accused was accordingly allowed.

Complainant deposed during cross-examination that about six months earlier to the occurrence, he lodged FIR under S. 364, P.P.C., regarding the abduction of a witness against the co-accused and his sons

Similarly, the eye-witness deposed during cross-examination that a criminal case was registered against accused and his father etc regarding his abduction

Said case was registered by the complainant of the present case

So, all these facts suggested that both the prosecution witnesses were not only inimical towards the accused persons but were also closely related to the deceased, and they had reasons to implicate the accused persons falsely

Circumstances established that the prosecution had badly failed to bring home a charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Mere saying that accused has falsely been implicated in case without specifying any enmity, ill-will of personal grudge, is not sufficient to prove innocence particularly when prosecution witnesses were consistent and their evidence could not be shattered in cross-examination.

Innocent stigmatized by false implication has to carry such irreparable stigma throughout his life span and its shadow on his next generation also leave dark impressions

People make false accusation for having feeling of enmity towards someone being jealous, getting rid of someone, taking revenge or attaining cheap fame

Such people after making false accusation become busy with their matters but the person against whom false accusation has been made falls into disgrace and infamy for the rest of his life.

Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for receiving illegal tax refunds through forged, manipulated, falsified and bogus invoices

Validity

Process of registration of a concern was manifold in which physical verification was required and same was to be done by some of officials of sales tax department attached to registration process

Appellant had stated that he had never worked for or remained associated with the actual culprits, he being a poor employee had been falsely implicated, he had rightly taken the plea of his being innocent

If such scam had taken place in department then responsible officers of that department should have been put to task for registration of fake concern with office of sales tax department

No effort was taken during investigation to associate those who were involved in the scam and only a dispatcher was involved as culprit

Many doubts in the case of prosecution existed and apparently a low grade employee of department were made scapegoat to save skin of influential black-sheep of department

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial court as prosecution could not establish case against accused

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for receiving illegal tax refunds through forged, manipulated, falsified and bogus invoices

Validity

Process of registration of a concern was manifold in which physical verification was required and same was to be done by some of officials of sales tax department attached to registration process

Appellant had stated that he had never worked for or remained associated with the actual culprits, he being a poor employee had been falsely implicated, he had rightly taken the plea of his being innocent

If such scam had taken place in department then responsible officers of that department should have been put to task for registration of fake concern with office of sales tax department

No effort was taken during investigation to associate those who were involved in the scam and only a dispatcher was involved as culprit

Many doubts in the case of prosecution existed and apparently a low grade employee of department were made scapegoat to save skin of influential black-sheep of department

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial court as prosecution could not establish case against accused

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Complainant claimed that he went towards a shop for purchasing household articles and found a stranger in the street, he inquired about the purpose of his presence; who replied that he had come to meet the accused

Complainant informed him that the street was closed ahead and the thoroughfare was used by womenfolk

Accused who had, in the meanwhile, come out of his house started abusing the complainant as to why he had stopped his guest; took out his pistol and fired at him, due to which one bullet hit at the right leg of the complainant

Validity

Complainant failed to mention the month in which the occurrence took place

Complainant had mentioned in his complaint that on coming out in the street, he found a person, whom he enquired about the purpose of his presence in the street, but in his statement before court complainant claimed that he found an Afghan refugee coming out from the house of accused and told him that since he used to visit regularly the house of accused, therefore he should use thoroughfare meant for gents and not of ladies

Complainant in his statement before court stated that the Afghan refugee tried to restrain him, but the complaint was silent in that regard

Complainant attempted to conceal his relation with the accused, but admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was his cousin

Shopkeeper was said to be the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, but his statement was hearsay evidence as the occurrence had not taken place in his presence rather according to him he enquired from the complainant about the occurrence, who disclosed that the accused had fired upon him

Shopkeeper stated that there existed a dispute relating to land between the parties

False implication of the accused could not be ruled out of consideration as the accused while recording his statement on oath took specific plea of false implication due to previous dispute

Accused was entitled to be extended benefit of doubt as a matter of right

Appeal was accepted and the judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside, in circumstances.

Plea raised by accused persons was that they were falsely implicated and that there was no chance of them tampering with prosecution evidence

Accused persons also contended that there was an unexplained delay of about 8 years in registration of FIR

Validity

Authorities failed to reply for such delay and why the complainant party remained mum for such a long time

Case was challaned and accused persons were no more required for investigation

Case of prosecution rested upon documentary evidence which was in possession of prosecution

Prosecution witnesses shown in challan sheet belonged to Anti-Corruption Department and there was no question for tampering of evidence at the hands of accused persons

Charge was not framed and matter was at initial stage while proceedings were going on in Trial Court with regards to absconding accused

As to when trial would commence and end was not known; no useful purpose would to be served if accused persons were kept behind bars for indefinite period or accused persons on interim pre-arrest bail were sent to jail

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Medico-Legal Report revealed that the duration of the injuries sustained by the accused was within eight to twenty hours, which prima facie proved that the accused might have been manhandled by the police and the contraband might have been planted upon him

High Court made certain observations as to the illegal conduct of the police officials in their dealing with criminals and conduct of investigation with reference to the duty of court under injunctions of Islam

Bail application was allowed accordingly.

Allegations as to motive of abduction that were killing, ransom or satisfaction of lust, had not been supported by material/evidence

Accused, being wife of the co-accused, was not expected to facilitate her husband to abduct a child for the purpose of the commission of unnatural lust; therefore, possibility, that complainant had spread wide net to entangle the whole family of the accused

Recovery of the abductee from house of present accused was not appealable to a prudent mind

Accused, being a woman, was entitled to the concessionary relief under S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused had a suckling baby of seven months at the time of her arrest

Accused was not a previous convict or involved in any criminal case

Challan of the case had already been submitted before the Court

Doubts brought the case within the purview of further inquiry

Bail application was allowed accordingly.

Complainant had been hit on non-vital parts of his body, which raised question as to whether or not accused had intention to kill complainant and his brother

Probability of false implication could not be ruled out as five accused who had been charged with alleged offence were all brothers

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Bail petition was accepted accordingly.

Trial court allowed bail on grounds including false implication on basis of previous enmity and security guard having not acted in response to attack on deceased

Validity

Trial court had not only overlooked prima facie aspect of present case, but had also accorded undue importance to, and embarked upon deep appreciation of conduct of security guard at time of occurrence

Security guard had explained his conduct at time of occurrence in his statement under S. 161 of Cr.P.C. followed by his statement under S. 164 of Cr.P.C.

Statement of security guard had also found support from statement of driver, other witness, recorded under S. 161 of Cr.P.C.

Security guard had explained as to how he had recognized accused at time of commission of offence

Overwhelming evidence was available on record to prima facie connect accused with offence

Such as direct charge of qatl-i-amd against accused in promptly lodged FIR by father of deceased

Was unlikely on part of father of deceased to substitute innocent person for real culprit

Strong motive of previous enmity existed but considering same as ground for false implication at bail stage would be farther from reality

Medical report supporting site-plan should have been good ground for holding accused prima facie connected with commission of offence

Disclosure of name of accused to driver by security guard was not so significant and fatal dent to prosecution case so as to create serious doubts about veracity of statements of two eye witnesses at bail stage

After remaining absconder, accused had been proceeded against under sections 204, 87 and 512 of Cr.P.C.

Crime weapon had been recovered and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory along with crime empties recovered from place of occurrence

Report of Fire Arms Expert was received in affirmative

Impugned order was flawed and against law

Application for cancellation of bail was allowed accordingly.

Rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons; theft; theft of car or other vehicle; mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, criminal trespass; criminal intimidation; word, gesture or act with intent to insult the modesty of a woman; attempt to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or for shorter term

Bail grant of

Further inquiry

False implication

Court below confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused persons

Prosecution evidence along with video recording of the occurrence appeared to have conflicting and contradictory situation

Case of the accused required further inquiry for the reasons that nothing was available on the record to show that when the occurrence had been witnessed by the cited witnesses and in what manner the stolen property had been shifted from the place of occurrence; that important questions regarding motive, which was dispute of land, were yet to be decided by the civil court; that allegation that the accused was armed with pistol appeared to be doubtful from the statements of witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.; that allegations of harassment were also doubtful; and that the accused had allegedly exploded crackers, but no empties of those crackers had been taken by the police from place of occurrence

Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out in view of the overall circumstances of the case

High Court maintained the impugned order of grant of bail

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Trial Court out of ten accused convicted five accused and sentenced them to death, while five accused were acquitted of the charge

Plea raised by accused was that due to enmity, complainant had falsely involved accused in the case

Validity

Two crime empties recovered from place of occurrence were fired from recovered .44 bore rifle and .8 mm bore rifle and that blood-stained earth and hatchet were stained with human blood

Rifle .7 mm was also recovered but no empty of the same was recovered from the place of occurrence

Sufficient corroboratory evidence had come on record to connect accused with commission of crime i.e. murder of three persons and Supreme Court disbelieved theory of conspiracy

Real motive as propounded in prosecution version was against one of the deceased, who had beaten one accused

Was not understandable as to why all accused having murdered the main person covered a long distance and murdered his two sons also

Something very obnoxious might have happened at place of occurrence of which neither prosecution had given any evidence nor the same had come out from the side of defence

Immediate circumstance or cause of happening of events, which culminated into murder of three persons altogether shrouded in mystery

Sufficient extenuating circumstances existed on the basis of which accused could not be made liable to maximum punishment provided under S.302(b), P.P.C. and converted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Appeal was allowed partly.

Accused in a futile attempt tried to make out a case by saying that nothing was recovered from the truck driven by them or they did not know about presence of contraband in truck in question and they had been falsely charged in the case

Accused, neither opted to produce defence witness nor desired to depose on oath in support of their contentions which fact too proved their guilt

Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused

Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Nothing was available on record to show that quantity of substance recovered was exaggerated or that all packets recovered from vehicle were not proved to have been of substance other than narcotics

Discrepancies or contradictions, if any, in statements of prosecution witnesses, highlighted by accused were not of a nature as could negate recovery resulting into dislodging entire prosecution version

Absence of any motive on the part of prosecution witnesses would further negate possibility of false implication

Onus to prove defence plea, under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was on the accused to have led evidence in support of his innocence regarding lack of knowledge that he was ignorant about presence of any narcotics in vehicle in question and to such effect his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. could be quoted wherein he refused to produce any defence evidence in support of his innocence

Accused being driver of motor car in question was presumed to be in control of the vehicle about which he had complete knowledge even presence of anything in it

Question of ignorance regarding presence of any contraband in the vehicle did not arise

Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him

Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Allegation against accused, who was a Christian girl, was that she was proceedings towards a garbage heap to dispose of a polythene bag, when the complainant intercepted her and found half burnt pages of prayer (Namaz) book in the bag

Contention on behalf of accused was that complainant and local imam (prayer leader) of the area wanted to expel the Christian community from the area

Validity

Accused was a juvenile Christian girl, who was not literate and her medical report showed that her mental capacity was below her actual age

People in ordinary daily life never bothered to inquire from any person and particularly from a minor girl as to what she was carrying in her bag and what she intended to do with the same

Prudent man would never bother to intercept a girl in such a situation, which manifested that complainant had some ulterior motives as contended by the accused

Prior to the alleged occurrence, local imam (prayer leader) of the area had urged in his sermon that Christian community residing in the area should be expelled

Mala fide on part of complainant was very much apparent

Complainant's statement showed that he suspected that polythene bag carried by accused contained verses from the Holy Qur'an, but he failed to explain how he suspected the same, when he had not stated that such verses were visible from the polythene bag

Police took possession of polythene bag through recovery memo, which was attested by complainant and local imam (prayer leader), but surprisingly it was mentioned in the recovery memo that bag also contained two burnt pages of the Holy Qur'an

Inclusion of pages of the Holy Qur'an in polythene bag and mentioning of same in the recovery memo by the complainant and local imam after a short while of the alleged occurrence was a clear contradiction in the prosecution story

Police had opined that accused was not mentally sound and she was completely unaware of religious feelings and preachings of Christianly and Islam

Investigation also revealed that accused did not have any mens rea to commit the offence alleged, which was the most important consideration for an offence under S.295-B, P.P.C.

Accused did not have any wilfull intention of defiling or destroying text of the Holy Qur'an, therefore she could not be considered to have any mens rea to commit the offence alleged

Investigation also revealed that no one witnessed accused putting fire to the pages of prayer (Namaz) book

Accused had been placed in column No.2 of the police report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.

One of the witnesses, who got his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. categorically stated that local imam had planted pages of the Holy Qur'an in the polythene bag, on account of which said imam had been declared as an accused and was taken into custody

Continuation of present proceedings, in circumstances, would be miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of court

Constitutional petition was allowed and F.I.R. was quashed to the extent of the accused.