The High Court's justifications for converting a death sentence to a life term are solid and convincing said by the Supreme Court

CAUSE TITLE:

AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF ORDER:

FEBRUARY 15, 2023

JUDGE(S):

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

PARTIES:

Petitioner: AJAI ALIAS AJJU. ETC

Respondent: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), upheld the order of High Court and dismissed the appeal made by the State of Uttar Pradesh for enhancement of the punishment. As a result, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 745­748 of 2015 is also rejected.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Indian Penal Code 1860

• Section 302 – states the punishment for committing murder 
• Section 149 – each member in an unlawful assembly is culpable of an offence done to further a shared goal.

Criminal Procedure Code 1973

• Section 161 – states the procedure which needs to be followed by the police officer while examining the witness. 

BRIEF FACTS:  

• A complaint was filed at the police station about the murder committed, where the heads were chopped off the victims. The daughter of the deceased was found in injured condition and was then sent to the hospital.    
• The investigation report revealed the hostile relationship between the members and the neighbour. It was stated by the daughter of the deceased, that around 3 a.m. she woke up due to some noises and saw her parents being attacked by her neighbour.
• The two daughters of the deceased somehow got saved and ran outside of the house. The accused along with other villagers came to the crime scene. The girls denied recognizing anyone as they were under threat.
• Medical examination was conducted on the deceased daughter and the post-mortem report of the four deceased was also conducted. Upon the investigation, it was found that the phone of one of the deceased was not traceable.
• Later on the neighbour Mukesh along with the other accused was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against them and the case was tried by the trial court. 
• The offense was charged under sections 302 and 149 of IPC and Armed Act 1959 by the trial court where the accused were sentenced to the death penalty. However, this sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court. A criminal appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court dated 22nd February 2012. The current appeal has been filed by State of Uttar Pradesh to intensify the punishment of the accused. 

QUESTIONS RAISED:

Whether death sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment with regards to section 149 and 302 of IPC? 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

The council argued that Smt. Pinky (PW 1) is the only eyewitness in this case, and as such, her testimony would not be reliable and should not have been relied upon because she was related to the deceased and had a personal grudge towards the appellants. There is no additional information to support the lone eyewitness, PW1, in his or her account.

The witness first refused to reveal the names of the attackers to the neighbours and other family members who heard her screaming and shouting, nor did she reveal the names of the attackers after she was admitted to the hospital, so it is an instance of improvement.

There is proof that when a dog squad was called out in the morning, it was because of unidentified attackers, and the eyewitness had either not seen anyone or, even if she had, she did not recognise them. If the identities of the 15 attackers were known, a dog squad would not have been deployed; therefore, this also suggests improvement.

There is no explanation as to why Ms. Rashmi and Horam, the grandparents of Ravi and the father of the dead Vijay Pal Singh, accused Braj Pal, were not questioned despite being present at the scene of the incident.

Smt. Pinky's (PW­1) statement was not recorded before the magistrate in accordance with section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which raises a question.

The appellant Ravi's learned counsel added the counterargument that Smt Pinky (PW­1) failed to provide his name to the investigating officer while providing her statement in accordance with section 161 CrPC. He claims it is an improvement because Ravi's name was used for the first time during the trial. His client has been wrongfully accused.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The council argued that the investigation report and other annexures submitted before the trial court and the High Court do not need any interference.
• The appellants, who were the deceased's close relations and neighbours, attempted to kill the wounded witness in addition to performing a heinous act to settle their account of enmity in order to obtain property. No tolerance should be extended to them.
• It is to be noted that the injuries suffered by the witness was not challenged. The testimony was in according of the law under section 161 of CrPC making her an attested witness.
• It has been made clear that non discloser of the names of the assailants at the starting; before investigation officer began questioning was justified as the witnesses were under threat and they needed to be protected. 
• Therefore, it is requested that the High Court's decision to impose a life sentence be overturned and that the Trial Court's execution sentence be reinstated.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:

• The learned council for the appellant Mukesh has made multiple attempts to highlight flaws and disparities in the evidence. We won't delve into details since they are unimportant and won't change the conclusions reached by the lower court.
• For all of the abovementioned reasons, we do not see any flaws in the High Court's ruling upholding the appellants' convictions. Hence, Criminal Appeal Nos. 598­600 of 2013 and 21 337 of 2014 are subject to dismissal and are dismissed as a result. 
• Regarding the State's petitions for a sentence enhancement, we find that the High Court provided solid and convincing justifications for reducing a death sentence into a life imprisonment. In light of this, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 745–748 of 2015 is likewise dismissed. The appellants will complete their prison terms while they are in custody. Any pending applications to be disposed of.

CONCLUSION

In the above case it can be seen that additionally, the no examination of the statement pursuant to section 164 CrPC has any impact on the findings and judgements made by the lower court. It was up to the investigating officer to capture the testimony in accordance with section 164 CrPC. If, in his judgement, he did not deem it essential, it cannot in any way affect witness statement or the other relevant evidence presented during the trial.    

Moreover at the time of investigation procedure According to the FIR, the dog team was activated because the attackers' identities were unknown. The prosecution asserts that the identities of the attackers were purposefully withheld from the public at the time the FIR was filed and at the time witness was brought to the hospital for treatment.

Therefore the claims made by the appellant about not mentioning the name beforehand, does not appear to be valid submission. However the Supreme Court did upheld the high court’s order and dismissed the appeal. 

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement