Date of Judgement:
31st January 2022
Coram:
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice MM Sundresh
Parties:
Appellant –Pappu Tiwary
Respondent – State of Jharkhand
Subject
The Supreme Court, during this case, determined that “The test which is applied of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean that the endeavour ought to be to criticize and somehow find some justification to obtain an acquittal."
Legal Provisions
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code-Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
- Sections 15 of the Juvenile Justice: It provides that a child between the age of 16-18 can be tried as an adult if he/she has committed a heinous offence.
- Sections 16 of the Juvenile Justice: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death [or imprisonment for any term which can be imprisonment for life], or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security:
Overview
- The Trial Court convicted Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Uday Pal, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari and Law Tiwari under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The judgment of conviction of the Trial court against all the six convicts was affirmed by the High Court of Jharkhand.
- In pursuance of an inquiry conducted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the aspect of juvenility, the High Court was of the opinion that Pintu Tiwari was a minor on the date of the incident and had already remained in jail for more than 3 years. Hence, the Court had held that no further order of detention may be passed in view of the provisions of Sections 15 & 16 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
- Sanjay Ram and Uday Pal accepted the High Court judgment
- The other three convicts filed appeals.
- In appeal, Law Tiwari raised the plea of alibi.
Issue
- • Whether the test which is applied for proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt means that the endeavour ought to be to criticize and somehow find some justification to obtain acquittal?
Judgment Analysis
- The court determined that the burden was on Law Tiwari to establish the plea of alibi that he failed to discharge,
- There was a contradiction within the testimonies of the eyewitnesses according to him. The Court observed that on perusal of the evidence, it could not be said that there were any major discrepancies with the testimony of the eyewitnesses as to throw doubt on the story of the prosecution.
- On the intimation of the incident, the fardbeyan was recorded immediately, an inquest report was prepared and the FIR was registered within 25 minutes of the same. The body was sent for post-mortem immediately and also the FIR was sent to the court the next morning, the court added.
- The court held that it was uncertain if there was any loophole that could have been utilised or that the FIR was ante timed and, thus, the objective of the requirement for sending the FIR to the Magistrate had been complied with and hence ruledout any merit in the plea.
- With regards to the discrepancy between the inquest report and the post-mortem report, the court said that it does not find any substance in this plea.
Conclusion
In consequence, the bench observed that the remaining arguments of learned counsel for the appellant were based on a plea of defective investigation and the absence of independent witnesses. But then there was no reason why the eyewitnesses'believable story should not be given full credence.
The test which is applied for proving the case beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean that the attempt should be to criticize and somehow find some justification to obtain an acquittal.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
