Supreme Court

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar

MANU/SC/0006/2018

08.01.2018

Criminal

Proved circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of Accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence

Present appeal preferred by the State challenges the judgment of the High Court acquitting the Respondent under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by setting aside his conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial court. Based upon the evidence, the trial court held that deceased suffered harassment at the hands of her brother-in-law (Respondent-Accused). The trial Court held that, Jeewan Lal (PW-1) son of the deceased had spoken about the overt act of the Accused in beating the deceased and that the Accused taking away Meena Devi from the house. The trial court held that, no reasonable explanation was forth coming from the Accused for the death of the deceased who was living jointly with the Respondent-Accused. On those findings, the trial court convicted the Respondent-Accused.

Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover, all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to be truthful in the given circumstances of the case. Once that impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. Jeewan Lal (PW-1) is the son of the deceased residing with her and the Accused in the same house, and a natural witness to speak about the occurrence. Evidence of PW-1 is cogent and natural and is consistent with the prosecution case. The High Court was not right in doubting the evidence of PW-1 on the ground of alleged improvements made by Jeewan Lal (PW-1) and rejecting his evidence on the premise that there were certain improvements.

Deceased was last seen alive in the company of Accused and the Accused did not satisfactorily explain the missing of deceased and the same is a strong militating circumstance against the accused. Decesded who was residing in the same house with the Accused and was last seen alive with the accused, it is for him to explain how the deceased died. The Accused has no reasonable explanation as to how the body of deceased was found hanging from the tree.

When conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any gap in the chain of circumstances; the Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the present case, by cogent and convincing evidence, prosecution has established the circumstances:(i) Motive (evidence of PW-15); (ii) Accused beating the deceased and taking her away (Evidence of PW-1); (iii) Death of deceased is homicidal (evidence of PW-24); (iv) Conduct of Accused in not reporting to the police about missing of the deceased; and (v) Absence of explanation from the Accused as to the death of the deceased. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The circumstances cumulatively taken form a complete chain pointing out that the murder was committed by the Accused and none-else.

In the appeal, the High Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and intrinsic worth of testimony of prosecution witnesses and the formidable circumstances established by the prosecution against the accused. The High Court entertained fanciful doubts and rejected the credible evidence of Jeewan Lal (PW-1) on slender grounds. Due to mis-appreciation of evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction and caused a miscarriage of justice. Reasonings of the High Court for acquitting the Accused are unsustainable and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment is set aside. The conviction of the Respondent under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court are affirmed. The appeal is allowed.

Tags : Acquittal Validity Evidence Credibility

Share :

Top

High Court of Rajasthan

Ram Kishor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

MANU/RH/0006/2018

05.01.2018

Contempt of Court

An apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected merely on ground that, it is qualified or conditional so long it is made bonafide

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the order passed by the Single Judge holding the Appellant guilty of alleged wilful disobedience of ex-parte orders and discarding the unconditional apology tendered by the Appellant punished him with simple imprisonment of seven days. Appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge while taking cognizance against the Appellant under its order has committed apparent error and no opportunity was afforded to the Appellant.

The law of Contempt of Courts is for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefined. While dignity of the court has to be maintained at all costs. The contempt jurisdiction which is of a special nature should be sparingly used. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction conferred on the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law. The contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. This has also been settled that, the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt.

The justification was tendered by the Appellant in response to explanation sought by the learned Single Judge vide order detailing out the steps being taken by the Appellant as Convenor of the NRC without any loss of time in compliance of ex-parte orders of which disobedience was alleged in the given facts & circumstances of the instant case and taking note of the explanation furnished, it cannot be said that, there was any disobedience of the ex-parte orders being committed by the Appellant, of which cognizance was taken by the Single Judge vide order and that too without affording opportunity of hearing recording a finding of the alleged contempt being committed against the appellant for punishment and there is no reason of declining unqualified & unconditional apology tendered by the Appellant.

The Explanation to Section 12 of the Act, makes it clear that, an apology tendered by a contemnor should not be rejected merely on the ground that, it is qualified or conditional so long it is made bonafide. From the detailed explanation which has been tendered by the Appellant, there appears nothing on record to suggest that, the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the Appellant as reflected from his explanation was actuated by reasons that are not bonafide and deserves acceptance in the given facts & circumstances. Judgment of the Single Judge in the given facts & circumstances is not sustainable in law and is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Apology Bonafide Acceptance

Share :

Top

High Court of Calcutta

Atanu Chattopadhyay Vs. Debangsu Basak and Ors.

MANU/WB/0004/2018

04.01.2018

Constitution

Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution

In instant case, the Petitioner consistently harps upon denial of access to justice and injustice perpetrated upon him in not acceding to his prayer either listing as per his desire before the particular Judge and refusal to release the matter as he has inculcated a sense of bias against a particular Judge. Petitioner alleged that, because of the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner has been denied justice and the Ministry of Law and Justice must take care and responsibility before nominating the advocates as the Hon'ble Judges of the Court, who are not fit for such posts. Issue involved in present is whether any cause of action is pleaded leading to denial of access to justice and such allegations and/or aspersions have any legal or factual basis.

It is not open to any person to make scandalous, disparaging and intemperate remarks directly on the Judges or their judicial act with intent to undermine the majesty of the Court and inculcate any adverse notion against the judicial system of the country to gain publicity. It is one thing to say that the criticism against the conduct, act and the orders of the Judges in dignified and healthy manner but it is totally different when the language and the expressions impair and hamper the administration of justice.

The impartiality, fairness and transparency lies in course of the judicial dispensation and if the learned Judge, the Respondent No. 2 herein does not find any urgency in the matter to give precedence to the Petitioner's application over the other matter, it cannot be taken as an act infringing any right of the Petitioner. The Judges in the country dealing with large cases and every citizen in the country has equal right to have its matter taken by the Court. Giving precedence to one matter as the Petitioner is appearing in person shall overreach the rights of the other person. There cannot be any discrimination between the right of each individuals guaranteed under the law. Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution. The entire allegation is unfounded, unsubstantiated, far to speak of any truth in it. The Court should not permit any litigant to initiate a proceeding on disparaging, scurrilous and intemperate remarks against the Judges and such person should be dealt with seriously.

Though present Court feels that, immediate action is warranted against the Petitioner for such scurrilous remark made against the Judges, yet considering his lack of understanding of the law and the functioning of the judicial system, this Court does not intend to initiate a contempt proceeding against the Petitioner but must make a remark that he should be vigilant, cautious and careful in initiating proceeding of such nature in future. Though imposition of costs is inevitable, yet bearing in mind the submission advanced by the Petitioner that, he is homeless and have no substantial income, this Court does not impose cost for this frivolous litigation. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Tags : Justice Denial Bias

Share :

Top

High Court of Orissa

Rohita Bhuniya Vs. Respondent: State of Orissa

MANU/OR/0006/2018

04.01.2018

Criminal

A moral opinion howsoever strong or genuine cannot be a substitute for legal proof

The Appellant faced trial and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) on the accusation that he being the husband of deceased subjected her to cruelty by demanding dowry since the date of their marriage till her death and committed murder of the deceased.

Law is well settled that fouler the crime, the higher should be the degree of scrutiny. A moral opinion howsoever strong or genuine cannot be a substitute for legal proof. When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous scrutinization of the evidence is necessary and it is the duty of the Court to see that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature and all the links in the chain of events must be established clearly beyond reasonable doubt and established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Whether the chain of events is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence. The Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed away by emotional consideration.

The circumstances brought on record by the prosecution have not been fully established and there is no cogent and reliable evidence against the Appellant to have committed the crime. The absence of an apparent motive is certainly a relevant factor to be considered in favour of the Appellant particularly when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The reasoning assigned by the trial Court in convicting the Appellant seems to be based on conjecture and suspicion which have no place in the matter of legal proof of guilt of the appellant in a criminal trial and the impugned verdict is nothing but a sheer moral conviction.

Though a young lady has lost her valuable life within a few months of her marriage while she was pregnant and that to while she was staying in her in-laws' house but that itself cannot be a factor to convict the Appellant. Emotions have no role to play in a criminal trial in adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the accused which is to be established by credible evidence. The crime committed may be cruel or ruthless but the evidence has to be evaluated dispassionately and objectively to see whether the accused is responsible for the said crime or he is innocent.

The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of the Appellant and the sentence passed thereunder is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 498-A/302 of IPC.

Tags : Conviction Evidence Credibility

Share :

Top

High Court of Himachal Pradesh

General Manager (Telecom) BSNL and Ors. Vs. Mahinder Singh

MANU/HP/0010/2018

03.01.2018

Civil

The findings cannot be said to be perverse unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration

In facts of present case, Defendants awarded to the Plaintiff the construction work of Thana Kot-Naina Devi OFC route. The Plaintiff started the execution of work by employing the men and machinery and most of the work was executed. But vide letter, Defendant No. 2 informed that, the aforesaid work order stands cancelled and the Plaintiff was requested to submit the left over store to the department. The suit filed by the Plaintiff was decreed by passing a preliminary decree in his favour and against the Defendants directing them to settle the accounts with the Plaintiff for the work executed by the Plaintiff within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the Defendants preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which too, has been ordered to be dismissed vide judgment and decree, constraining the Defendants to file the instant appeal.

A judgment can be said to be perverse if the conclusions arrived at by the learned Courts below are contrary in evidence on record, or if the Court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence or the pleadings is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on erroneous understanding of law and of the facts of the case. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would have arrived at. Therefore, unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration, the findings cannot be said to be perverse.

Even though the SDO (T), BSNL, BIlaspur had vide his letter intimated the Plaintiff to stop the work with immediate effect till further orders. But the work allotted in favour of the Plaintiff had not been finally cancelled, but had been postponed and was to abide by the further orders that were to be issued by the Defendants. Likewise, letter that was subsequently issued by SDO (T), Bilaspur, the work was though ordered to be cancelled with immediate effect, however, this again was made subject to directions from the higher authorities.

It has specifically come on record that, the matter was being prolonged by the Defendants on one pretext or the other by not issuing measurement books by its officials to the higher authorities thereby rendering the higher authorities helpless in taking the final decision. Thus, in absence of any final decision, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that the suit as filed by the Plaintiff was time barred. Once the suit of the Plaintiff is held to be within time, then all other questions as were involved in the suit are required to be settled on the basis of the accounts as per the decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court.

The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concurrent findings of fact which are binding on present Court while hearing the second appeal. It is more so, when these findings are neither found to be perverse to the extent that, no judicial person could ever record such findings nor these findings have been found against the evidence nor against the pleadings and lastly, nor against any provision of law. No question of law much less substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Tags : Contract Accounts Settlement

Share :

Top

High Court of Chhattisgarh

Seema Agency Vs. Union of India and Ors.

MANU/CG/0001/2018

02.01.2018

Education

Legitimate expectation operates in the field of public and not private law and such legitimate expectation ought to be protected though not guaranteed

The Petitioner is a chemist and supplier of various types of drugs/medicines, whereas Respondent No. 2 - All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), is one of the health care institutes established by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India under the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojna (PMSSY) with the aim of correcting regional imbalances in quality tertiary level health care in the country and for attaining self-sufficiency in graduate and post-graduate medical education and training. In order to achieve its aim, the Respondent AIIMS issued a global tender inviting applications for establishment of Chemist shop at AIIMS, Raipur and ultimately, upon completion of formalities, the Petitioner's offer was accepted and letter of award was issued to the petitioner on 8-1-2013 and agreement was signed on 24-1-2014 to setup and operate 24 x 7 pharmacy/chemist shop within the premises of AIIMS, Raipur for supply of medicines/surgical consumables/implants/orthotic and prosthetic devices etc. on discounted rates with a condition of maximum accepted discount of 65.30% rebate on printed MRP inclusive of VAT.

Since the Petitioner's term was going to expire on 23rd January, 2017, the Petitioner made a request before the AIIMS authorities for extension of agreement of the said shop for a further period which has been regretted by Respondent No. 2 leading to filing of a writ petition questioning the memo dated 10th January, 2017, but later-on the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to move fresh and by letter dated 2nd May, 2017, the Petitioner's agreement for running the pharmacy store was extended till 31st October,2017 on the same terms and conditions as earlier agreed upon between the parties. Upon completion of six months, when fresh notice was served to the Petitioner that, no further extension can be granted and as per PMSSY Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, a Jan Aushadhi Store is to be opened in the premises of AIIMS, Raipur, present writ petition has been filed feeling aggrieved and questioning that order.

"Salus populi est suprema lex: regard for the public welfare is the highest law". This principle is based on the implied agreement of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity yield to that of community. His property, liberty and life shall under certain circumstances be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good. This legal maxim has been followed by Supreme Court in the matter of Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others and it has been held that, in public law in certain situations, relief to the parties aggrieved by action or promises of public authorities can be granted on the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" but when grant of such relief is likely to harm larger public interest, the doctrine cannot be allowed to be pressed into service.

In the matter of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., the Supreme Court has held that, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. Where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. Legitimate expectation being less than a right operates in the field of public and not private law and to some extent such legitimate expectation ought to be protected though not guaranteed.

In the matter of Madras City Wine Merchants' Assn. v. State of T.N., the Supreme Court has held that, legitimate expectation may arise-(a) if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or (b) because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue; (c) such an expectation must be reasonable. However, if there is a change in policy or in public interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation, no question of legitimate expectation would arise.

In the instant case, the subject shop was given by contract agreement to the Petitioner for a period of three years and was extended for a further period of six months, but thereafter, the Government has taken a policy decision to open Jan Aushadhi Outlet for providing generic medicines to poor and down trodden people, in all the six AIIMS premises which was conveyed through the memo dated 12th June, 2017 to the Respondent AIIMS and thus, the competent authority of the Respondent taken a decision not to renew the contract agreement for further period and decided to open the Jan Aushadhi Outlet in the said premises, in larger public interest, that too through M/s. HLL Lifecare Limited which is a Government of India enterprise. The Government/respondents are free to take a decision in this regard particularly when the opening of Jan Aushadhi Outlet has become imperative for them. There are stronger reasons not to protect the claim of legitimate expectation on behalf of the Petitioner as the decision has been taken in overriding public interest particularly keeping in view the provision for providing generic medicines to the weaker and down trodden sections of the society in more subsidised rates which is one of the policy decisions of the Government of India and to implement the same, the shop/outlet in question is required to be established by the respondents. Therefore, no question of legitimate expectation would arise and such a doctrine cannot be pressed into service competently and also for the reason as the petitioner's performance was not found satisfactory.

It cannot be held that, the Petitioner has a legally enforceable and substantive right in the shape of legitimate expectation for a writ of mandamus for getting the lease renewed in its favour. Consequently, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Relevant

Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. MANU/SC/0337/2004
; Union of India and others vs. Hindustan Development Corpn. and others MANU/SC/0219/1994
; Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and Anr. vs. State of T.N. and Anr. MANU/SC/0815/1994

Tags : Lease Renewal Right

Share :