In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on January 16, 2024, a Division Bench comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Honourable Mr. Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra overturned the conviction and sentencing of two individuals, Tarkeshwar Ram and Suresh Sahni, in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 216 of 2014. The case, which originated in the district of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, had resulted in the conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-11, Muzaffarpur, on May 20, 2016.
The two appeals, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 589 of 2016 filed by Tarkeshwar Ram and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 785 of 2016 filed by Suresh Sahni, both challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court. The High Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and the proceedings before the trial court, found merit in the appeals and consequently set aside the earlier verdict.
Background of the Case
The Saraiya P.S. Case No. 216 of 2014 stemmed from an incident that led to the filing of a police report (First Information Report or FIR) at the Saraiya Police Station in the district of Muzaffarpur. Following the investigation, a trial was conducted in the Sessions Court, culminating in the conviction and sentencing of Tarkeshwar Ram and Suresh Sahni. Tarkeshwar Ram, son of Dhurendhar Ram and a resident of Village- Saraiya Basant, P.S. Taraiya, District Saran Chapra, was the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 589 of 2016. Suresh Sahni, son of Late Sonelal Sahni, residing in Village - Chakki, Sohagpur, P.S. Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur, was the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 785 of 2016. The State of Bihar was the respondent in both appeals.
Arguments Presented Before the High Court
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 589 of 2016, Tarkeshwar Ram was represented by Advocates Mr. Radha Mohan Singh and Mr. Satyam Anand. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 785 of 2016, Suresh Sahni was represented by Advocates Mr. Aaruni Singh and Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam. The State of Bihar was represented by Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) in the first appeal and by Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP in the second appeal.
The core of the appellants' arguments likely revolved around challenging the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial. This could have included questioning the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the admissibility or interpretation of documentary evidence, and the overall sufficiency of the evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, the State would have argued in favor of upholding the trial court's judgment, asserting that the evidence presented was credible and sufficient to prove the charges against the accused.
The High Court's Analysis and Findings
The judgment, penned by Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, explicitly states that both appeals were allowed due to the reasons recorded in the judgment. The High Court meticulously reviewed the judgment of the trial court and the evidence on record. Several key observations and findings led to the acquittal of the appellants:
-
Lack of Cogent Evidence: The High Court expressed a clear view that the Trial Court had committed a "grave error" in relying upon certain documents, particularly the seizure list and the injury report, in the absence of any other cogent evidence. This suggests that these documents, which are typically important pieces of evidence in criminal trials, were either improperly presented, lacked corroboration, or their evidentiary value was deemed insufficient by the High Court.
- A seizure list is a document prepared by the investigating agency at the time of recovering any material object related to the crime. It details the items seized, the location of seizure, and the witnesses present. If the witnesses to the seizure were not examined or if there were discrepancies in the seizure list, its reliability could be questioned.
- An injury report (often a medico-legal report or MLC) documents the injuries sustained by the victim. If the doctor who prepared the report was not examined or if the report's findings were inconsistent with other evidence, its probative value might be diminished.
The High Court's emphasis on the absence of "other cogent evidence" implies that these documents, even if considered, could not independently establish the guilt of the accused without further supporting evidence.
-
Identification of the Accused During Night Hours: A critical point raised by the High Court pertained to the identification of the appellant, Suresh Sahni, by the victim boy. The judgment specifically notes that the statement of the victim boy recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) did not reveal how he could identify Suresh Sahni during the night hours.
- Section 164 of the CrPC allows a Magistrate to record confessions or statements made by any person during the course of an investigation. These statements can be crucial evidence. However, the circumstances under which an identification is made are vital. Identification made during nighttime can be challenging and prone to error, especially if the lighting conditions were poor or the victim had limited opportunity to observe the accused. The High Court seemingly found the lack of clarity on this aspect in the victim's statement to be a significant flaw in the prosecution's case against Suresh Sahni.
-
Recovery of the Victim: The High Court also highlighted a discrepancy regarding the recovery of the victim boy. The judgment states that the record did not reveal that the victim boy was recovered from the hut of Tarkeshwar Ram. This observation gains significance because the Investigating Officer (IO), who would be the primary witness to testify about the recovery of the victim and the circumstances surrounding it, was not examined in the case.
- The Investigating Officer plays a crucial role in a criminal investigation, collecting evidence, examining witnesses, and preparing the charge sheet. Their testimony is often vital in establishing the chain of events and linking the accused to the crime. The failure to examine the IO in this case appears to have created a significant gap in the prosecution's narrative, particularly concerning the recovery of the victim, which could have potentially linked one or both of the accused to the alleged crime.
-
Overall Assessment: Based on these critical observations – the reliance on documents without other supporting evidence, the questionable identification of Suresh Sahni, and the lack of testimony regarding the victim's recovery – the High Court concluded that the Trial Court had committed a "grave error" in convicting the appellants.
The Verdict and its Implications
Consequently, the High Court allowed both appeals, effectively quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated May 20, 2016, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-11, Muzaffarpur.
The operative part of the judgment explicitly states that both appellants, Tarkeshwar Ram in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 589 of 2016 and Suresh Sahni in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 785 of 2016, were acquitted of the charges leveled against them by the trial court.
Furthermore, recognizing that both appellants were in jail, the High Court directed their immediate release, provided their presence was not required in any other case. This directive underscores the principle that an individual, once acquitted by a higher court, should not continue to be incarcerated for the same charges.
Legal Principles Involved
This case highlights several important principles of criminal law and the administration of justice:
- Burden of Proof: In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence: The courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence presented by the prosecution to ensure its admissibility under the law and its reliability in establishing the guilt of the accused. Documentary evidence, such as seizure lists and injury reports, must be properly presented and corroborated by other evidence.
- Importance of Key Witnesses: The testimony of key witnesses, such as the victim and the Investigating Officer, is crucial for establishing the facts of the case. The failure to examine such witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution's case.
- Identification of the Accused: The identification of the accused by the victim or witnesses must be credible and reliable, especially in challenging circumstances like nighttime identification. The prosecution must provide sufficient details about the identification process to satisfy the court.
- Role of the Appellate Court: The appellate court has the power to review the findings of the trial court and to overturn the judgment if it finds errors in law or fact, or if the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which these appeals were filed, grants this power to the High Court in cases where a person is convicted by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or any other Court of Session.
- Right to Fair Trial: The principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial are fundamental tenets of the Indian legal system. This includes the right of the accused to challenge the evidence against them and to have their case reviewed by a higher court if they believe they have been wrongly convicted.
Conclusion
The judgment in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 589 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 785 of 2016 demonstrates the crucial role of the High Court in safeguarding the principles of justice. By meticulously examining the evidence and identifying critical flaws in the trial court's reasoning, the Division Bench ensured that the appellants were not unjustly held guilty. The acquittal of Tarkeshwar Ram and Suresh Sahni underscores the importance of a fair trial, the need for cogent and reliable evidence, and the appellate court's responsibility to correct errors made by lower courts. This case serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice prevails. The immediate release of the acquitted individuals further emphasizes the significance of individual liberty within the legal framework.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM1ODkjMjAxNiMxI04=-L6mcScaLLDE=
