NDLI: Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860: s.302 Penal Code Relevance of Motive
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Prosecution case was that on fateful day, appellant-accused murdered his wife and four children with a sharp cutting weapon while they were sleeping – Motive behind the murder was attributed to extra marital affair of appellant with one married lady which was highly opposed by the deceasedwife – Discovery statement made by appellant and consequently recovery made – Appellant said to have made extra judicial confession to prosecution witness – Trial court convicted the appellant and passed death sentence – High Court confirmed the death sentence – Hence instant appeal – Held: Present case is based on circumstantial evidence – Mere discovery is insufficient to infer the authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – The exact words of the accused person while making discovery statement was not deposed by prosecution witness – Further, the contents of panchnama were not proved – Credibility of police witness (PW-6 and PW-7) was doubtful and evidence of discovery was held to be unreliable – Credibility of extra judicial confession was also doubted in view of oral evidence of prosecution witness – As circumstance relating to extra judicial confession and discovery of weapon of offence were not established, the chain of circumstantial evidence was not established fully and thus other circumstance such as motive or the evidence of false explanation offered by the appellant as an additional link in chain of evidence were not considered – Further, the explanation offered by the accused for injuries on his body could be said to be compatible with the defense story – Prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction is set aside. Evidence Act, 1872: s.8 – Relevance of Motive – Circumstantial Evidence – There cannot be straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence – Circumstances suggesting guilt must be cogently and firmly established – The same must be of definite tendency and conclusive in nature – The circumstances should form the chain which conclusively points towards the guilt of accused in all human probability – Circumstantial evidence must be complete and should be devoid of any hypothesis giving room for accused’s innocence but must support only one hypothesis i.e. his guilt – Motive, though not as such an element of crime, but it assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence – Absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused – Motive could be an important circumstance but it per se does not take place as conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime. Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 – Discovery Statement – Information received from the accused must result into discovery of fact for s. 27 to apply – While making such deposition, the accused must be in police custody – Only so much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible – Further mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon – There might be the possibility that the person may have seen somebody concealing the weapon, therefore it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered weapon, he was the person who concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. Evidence Act, 1872: Confession – Classification and Scope – Confession can be classified as Judicial and extra-judicial – Former relates to those which are made before the Magistrate or Court – Extra Judicial are made before a private individual and which may include judicial officer in private capacity and Magistrate not especially empowered u/s 164 CrPC or the one so empowered but receiving confession at stage where s.164 does not apply. Evidence Act, 1872: Extra Judicial Confession – Weightage – It is a weak type of evidence since it can be easily procured whenever direct evidence is not available – It is not open to the Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence – It can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility – Credibility can be tested by keeping in mind that it comes from an unbiased witness who is not inimical to accused and who do not have motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused etc. Evidence Act, 1872: Confession – Basis of Conviction – Explained – It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by the independent evidence – Further Extra-Judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated – Also the confession procured under promise or threat or harassment is involuntary in nature and cannot be use in evidence – Involuntary confession is not which is not the result of free will of the maker. Evidence Act, 1872: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – False Explanation tendered by the accused – Whether forms additional link in circumstantial evidence – Explained – The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence – It is not the law where there is any infirmity or lacunae in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a false plea which is not accepted by a Court – Only when all the circumstantial evidence are well established which points towards the guilt then only false explanation or false defence tendered by accused can be used as additional link and not otherwise. Evidence Act, 1872: Burden of Proof – Extent and Meaning – In criminal trial the burden on the accused is to show the “preponderance of probabilty” – The accused is not under burden to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt unlike prosecution – The meaning which the term “preponderance of probabilty” carries is something which connotes to “more probable and rational view of the case”, not necessarily as certain as the pleading should be – The high standard of proof as required for prosecution is only to avoid wrongful conviction as the wrongful conviction leads to greater injustice than wrongful acquittal. Constitution of India: Art.39A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.304 – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – s.9 – Legal aid to accused – Duty of State – Explained – What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake – It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities – The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent – Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1075
Petitioner	Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti
Respondent	State Of Uttar Pradesh
SCR	[2022] 5 S.C.R. 162
Judgement Date	2022-10-13
Case Number	64

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Hari Shankers Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Abrar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Chotkau Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Om Pal & Ors.

Dwarka Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Shanker Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Abdul Waheed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hari Shankers Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Abrar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Chotkau Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Om Pal & Ors.

Dwarka Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Shanker Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Abdul Waheed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh