CASE TITLE:
Ashok Kumar Chandel Vs State of UP
DATE OF ORDER:
4 November 2022
JUDGES:
CJI UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha
PARTIES:
Appellant: Ashok Kumar Chandel
Respondent: State of UP
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court stated that a ballistic report submitted by a lab’s director, deputy director, or assistant director under seal can be considered to have complied with Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 293 - Reports of certain Government scientific experts. - (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
Indian Penal Code
- Section 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. - If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
BRIEF FACTS
- In Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh, there has been a protracted factional conflict between two parties. Both the group represented by the Shukla family and the group represented by Ashok Chandel (A5) have a long history of animosity toward one another. The incident described in the FIR happened at 09.10 PM on January 26, 1997, in Mohalla Subhash Bazar, Kasba, Hamirpur. It involved two events that happened quickly one after the other. The first incident happened in front of “Naseem’s gun shop,” owned by accused no. 6, and the second incident happened close to Parma Pandit’s home, which is around 50 - 75 metres away from Naseem’s gun shop.
- In order to purchase certain items, Rajiv Shukla (PW-1) and his servant Lallan travelled to the Mohalla Subhash Bazaar, Kasba, Hamirpur on January 26, 1997, around 7:30 PM. They witnessed PW-1’s older brother Rakesh Kumar Shukla, together with his two boys, Gudda and Chandan, Sri Kant Pandey, Vipul (PW-1’s son), and Ved Prakash, returning home in a car that they collectively referred to as a “jonga” as they did.
- PW-1 and Lallan halted when they saw the jonga to talk to Rakesh Kumar Shukla and other people inside. Six defendants - Ashok Kumar Chandel (A5), Naseem (A6), Shyam Singh (A7), Sahab Singh (A8), Jhandu (A9), and Rukku (the driver of A5)—came out of Naseem’s gun shop equipped with rifles and guns and began firing indiscriminately at the jonga as it was stopped in the centre of the road, facing east.
- According to the FIR, Raghuvir Singh, a liquor contractor (A1), his son Ashutosh alias Dabbu Singh (A2), Pradeep Singh (A4), Uttam Singh (A3), and Bhan Singh (A10) all arrived at the scene in another vehicle and immediately began firing at the jonga after hearing the sound of fire coming from the side of the market. Ved Prakash and Sri Kant, who were seated on the back side of the jonga, both sustained gunshot wounds as a result of the firing. Ved Prakash has since passed away. Chandan, Vipul, Gudda, Rakesh Kumar Shukla (now died), and others also sustained gunshot wounds. The shooting caused fear, and the market was closed as a result.
- Upon learning of the tragedy, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, PW-1’s older brother, Ravi Kant Pandey (PW-2), Bhagwati Sharan Nayak, Sri Prakash Nayak, Anil, and numerous others rushed to the scene. The kids Chandan and Vipul were quickly removed from the jonga and transported home with the aid of some locals after suffering minor injuries.
- Rajesh Shukla began to move the jonga toward the hospital, which is on the west side of the Subhash Bazar Road, by reversing it from in front of Naseem’s gun store. However, the accused had already arrived at Parma Pandit’s house, which is approximately 50–75 metres from Naseem’s gun shop. As soon as Ashok Chandel (A5) said that “no one from the Shukla Family should escape alive,” the accused all recommenced shooting indiscriminately. Rajesh Shukla then exited the jonga with his gun in hand, took aim, and retaliated against the accusers. Rajesh Shukla, however, was struck in the crossfire and instantly passed away. PW-1 also sustained leg wounds from bullets while standing on the driver’s side (right side) of the jonga.PW2 is in a like situation; he also sustained leg injuries from bullets. PW-1 witnessed the attackers seize the weapon from Rajesh Kumar Shukla (now deceased), who had fallen due to gunshot wounds, and flee from the scene of the crime toward the “chowraha” in their vehicles. This occurred as PW-1 and his colleagues found cover to hide themselves.
- PW-1 put Srikant Pandey and Ved Prakash in the jonga and drove them to the hospital after observing Rajesh Kumar Shukla also suffer from gunshot wounds like Gudda and Rakesh Kumar Shukla. He did this in an effort to save them.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused in the event of an appeal against acquittal. The presumption of his innocence is strengthened and reiterated because he was able to obtain an acquittal from one of the courts. As a result, the appellate court should not overturn the trial court’s decision of acquittal if two conclusions can be drawn from the information in the record. He cited the ruling in N. Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu by this Court. In addition, he claimed that the High Court had overturned the Trial Court’s conclusions without giving any explanation and had only done so by claiming that the Trial Court’s decision was based on suppositions and conjecture.
- He concentrated on the credibility and integrity of this witness’ testimony appropriately because it is the main component of the prosecution’s case. The following characteristics of the case, he claimed, would demonstrate that PW-1 was not there at the site of the crime and cannot be taken at all as an eyewitness. It was argued that the prosecution failed to present any evidence to support how two groups of accused came together in one location to create an unlawful assembly with the shared goal of firing indiscriminately at those seated in the jonga.
- The prosecution’s argument is that on January 26, 1997, at around 7.30 p.m., PW-1 and his servant Lallan, who had gone to the market to buy some items, encountered Rakesh Shukla in the jonga. If the aforementioned gathering was only a coincidence, the idea that it was an unlawful assembly with a purpose would be invalidated. Furthermore, it was not claimed that the defendants had previously formed an unlawful assembly. It was argued that the incident occurred in two distinct portions and that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to present evidence showing when the illegal assembly in the first incident dispersed and when it reassembled in the second incident.
- In light of this, it was argued that because there was no proof that an illegal assembly had been formed with a shared goal. The counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Nawab Ali v. The State of U.P., Masalti v. State of U.P. and State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Charan and orsto say that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish that the defendant was a part of the illegal assembly at the time the crime was committed. Furthermore, unless there is sufficient evidence on file to demonstrate that each member intended to or knew the likelihood of committing such an offending act, being a member of the unlawful assembly as defined by Section 149, IPC, it is not sufficient to hold that each member is criminally liable for the offence committed by the others.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- In order to underline the reliability of the eyewitnesses, learned ASG identified the injuries of the witnesses and the deceased and compared them with the documentation evidence and the statements of doctors. Additionally, she made reference to the post-mortem reports of Rakesh Shukla, Rajesh Shukla, Srikant Pandey, Gudda, and Ved Prakash and once more connected them to the testimony of the medical professionals who were questioned in relation to the relevant exhibits. The knowledgeable ASG claims that this is yet another element supporting the eyewitnesses’ account.
- Learned ASG extensively referenced PW-1’s testimony in an effort to refute the witness’s claims with the material in the file. She would also contend that there is no reason to doubt the eyewitnesses’ testimony, and if their account is accepted, then the different hypotheses and discrepancies put up by the Appellants must be disregarded. The learned ASG emphasised the strategy used by this Court to handle an appeal against acquittal and argued that there is no unbreakable rule prohibiting an appellate court from overturning an acquittal decision, even in cases when there has been a serious injustice.
- She has cited specific precedents of this Court that outline the proper strategy that should be used in response to the appellants’ argument that failing to cross-examine witnesses would be fatal to the prosecution. We were made aware of the justification used by the High Court to overturn the Trial Court’s judgement. The learned ASG underlined that the Trial Court had dismissed the statements of the eyewitnesses without understanding the rules on which an injured eyewitness evidence is to be regarded due to its too technical analysis of their testimony.
- She contends that the Trial Court made a fundamental mistake by clearing every accused person despite the eyewitnesses’ strong testimony. The learned ASG declares in her conclusion that, in overturning the Trial Court’s judgement, the High Court did not err in fact or law. She had begged for these appeals to be dismissed for this reason.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The first preliminary submission, Jurisdiction of the High Court in Appeals Against Acquittals, is based on a rule established by this Court that, in an appeal against an acquittal, the criminal appellate court will not interfere with the acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. Thus, the High Court’s decision to reverse the order of acquittal was not supported, according to the common argument made by all of the attorneys representing the appellants.
- The second common issue brought up by numerous Appellants concerns the intent underlying the commission of the crime. The Trial Court ruled that the arguments between Chandel and the other Shukla group defendants were “insufficient” to constitute murder. The appellants’ attorneys have frequently contended that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had a reason to conduct the crime.
- The court initially decided that the Trial Court’s conclusion that the motivation put out by the prosecution is “insufficient” for the murder of five people is an inappropriate action. When the prosecution depends on direct evidence from hurt eyewitnesses, the adequacy or lack of sufficient of purpose does not directly affect the actual evidence against the accused.
- Another strong defence put out by the appellants is that it is unlikely that PW-1 was at the site of the crime. As a result, his testimony must be disregarded because he isn’t even an eyewitness.
- The trial court did not specifically find an unlawful assembly or common object under Section 149, the judges ruled. While addressing the submission, the High Court discussed this matter and cited the ruling of this Court. After careful consideration, they believe that before overturning the Trial Court’s ruling, the High Court thoroughly researched the topic and weighed it from all angles. Therefore, the High Court’s ruling is not exceptional.
- The prosecution’s successful proof, in the eyes of the court, was the recovery of the 8x60 bore rifle from Sahab Singh (A8) and the arrest of the other suspects, A6, A7, and A10. The Trial Court could not have disregarded the prosecution’s unambiguous, clear, and consistent proof that the firearm, ammunition, and arrests had been recovered. Therefore, the Trial Court’s judgments were not only incorrect but also obviously flawed. These were strong justifications from the High Court for overturning the Trial Court’s judgement.
- The bench was of the opinion that the Trial Court made a serious mistake by rejecting the ballistic report because it originated from the Assistant Director’s office and bore his seal, and that the High Court should therefore reverse the Trial Court’s decision on this basis in light of Section 293(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was explained by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram.
CONCLUSION
As this was an appeal against the High Court’s ruling overturning an acquittal order. Every argument made by the appellants has been thoroughly reviewed by the top court. In order to determine whether the reversal is based on what this Court mandated as very substantial and compelling reasons or good and sufficient grounds causing grave miscarriage of justice, they have also taken note of the reasoning used by the Trial Court on each issue and contrasted it with the decision of the High Court. After carefully considering the situation, they concluded that the informant’s (PW-1) Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 57/2022 ought to be dismissed. There won’t be a cost-related order.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
