Top News Headlines 12th Feb 2022: Conjectures Cannot Be Allowed To Take Place of Proof

Conjectures Cannot Be Allowed To Take Place of Proof; Judges To Tread Cautiously In Circumstantial Evidence: Telangana HC

• The Hon’ble Telangana HC has, in the case of Janapally Anjilaiah vs. The State of AP has held that conviction cannot be based solely on circumstantial evidence, unless the chain of evidence leaves no other conclusion except the accused’s guilt.
• In the instant case, Ananthaiah had lodged a complaint in 2008 that his mother had disappeared after she had gone to have dinner at Mr. Rasheed’s house and later her dead body was found lying near a water tank by Jakkulapally. Later it was pointed out that Anjilaiah had illegal relations with the victim and that is why he was suspected to be behind her death.
• The trial Court had relied on the testimony of PW1 and 2 who said that their mother had gone with the accused to dinner and the trial Court convicted the accused.
• The HC at the outset, clearly declared that the case of the prosecution was solely based on circumstantial evidence, and in such cases. Judges must tread cautiously and not let suspicion take the place of proof.
• In support of its observations, the Court relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble SC in Gargi vs. State of Haryana where the SC held that circumstantial evidence is one where facts are proved from which the fact in issue may be inferred or rendered probable.
• The Court also outlined the doctrine of panchsheel enumerated in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra where it was held that the circumstances should be fully established, these circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and should be of a consistent nature.
• The Court thus held that the chain of events was not complete in the present case. The Court also held that the extra judicial confession cannot be the sole basis of conviction if the surrounding circumstances create a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
• Thus, the order of conviction by the Trial Court was set aside.

Insurance Claims Cannot Be Repudiated For Delay In Intimation About Theft If FIR Was Registered Immediately: Supreme Court

• Setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCRDC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), in Jaina Construction Company v The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr has held that insurance claims cannot be denied merely on the basis that there was a delay in intimation of the same to the Insurance Company.
• The question before the SC was whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim made by the owner, which was duly insured, merely on the ground that there was a delay in informing the Insurer about the theft of the vehicle.
• The Appellant-Complainant (Construction Co.) had its truck stolen by some miscreants and an FIR was registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was arrested; however, the vehicle could not be traced and an untraceable report was filed. Subsequently, the Complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Co. but the latter failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time.
• Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Redressal Forum. During the pendency of this complaint, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim of the Appellant stating that the latter committed a breach by informing the company more than 5 months after the loss of the vehicle whereas, the policy mandated an immediate notice.
• The District Forum allowed the Appellant’s claim with cost. This award was also upheld by the State Consumer Redressal Commission, in addition to partly allowing the Appellant’s of an enhanced compensation. However, the NCRDC allowed the Insurance Co’s revision petition.
• The SC, referring to an earlier decision by a three judge Bench in Gurshinder Singh v Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr, remarked that the Insurance Company did not reject the claim on genuineness of the claim but on account of delay intimation and this was clearly in violation of the ratio settled by the SC in the aforementioned. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
• In the case of Gurshinder Singh (Supra), the SC held that the term “co-operate” used in Insurance contracts must be assessed having regard to facts and circumstances of each case. In an Insurance contract much would depend on the words “co-operate” and “immediate” in Condition 1 of the standard commercial vehicle policies.
• While assessing the “duty to co-operate” for the insured, the court should have regard to those breaches by the insured which are prejudicial to the insurance company. Mere delay in informing the theft when the same was already informed to law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to a breach of “duty to cooperate” on part of the insured.
• The reason Insurance Company insists on an immediate intimation so that a surveyor can be assigned to assess the extent of damages. In a case where a FIR has been filed and the Police successfully recovers the vehicle, the need to intimate the Insurer does not arise. It is only when the Police are unable to trace and recover the vehicle, the insured will be in a position to lodge a complaint with the Insurance company. Therefore, delay in intimation when a FIR had been lodged is not ground to deny an insured’s claim.