Human Rights are not only of accused but also of victim, Law in Mohan Lal not applicable to cases prior to it

The Supreme Court today held that the all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case..A Bench of Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Navin Sinha and KM Joseph observed in its judgment that Human Rights’ are not only of the accused but also of the victim and that Mohan Lal cannot be allowed to become a spring board for an accused to be catapulted to acquittal..While individual rights of an accused are important, the interest of the society in bringing an offender to book is equally important, the Court observed in the case concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act)..Facts.The appellant in the case had challenged the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that reversed his acquittal and sentenced him to a twenty-year term under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for being in possession of “charas”..The Trial Court had acquitted the accused in the case on the ground of non-compliance with Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which relates to independent witnesses..Among other things, the Trial Court had also cited non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act which relates to conditions for search and seizure of contraband from the body of the person..The High Court, however, reversed this judgment stating that the contraband was seized from gunny bags carried by the accused and therefore Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not get attracted. The Court also added that merely because the two independent witnesses did not belong to the same locality, the provisions under Section 100 of the CrPC cannot be said to be flouted..It, therefore, convicted the accused..Appeal before the Supreme Court.When an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court, the Counsel for the appellant Advocate Dhruv Pall submitted that the appellant was being falsely implicated because he had filed a complaint against the CID for improper investigation in a case relating to his father’s death..The Appellant Counsel submitted that while one of the two independent witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case, the second was withheld by the Prosecution without any explanation. Additionally, the informant in the case was also the Investigating officer which vitiates the conviction..The Appellant also placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s August 2018 judgment in Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab which also dealt with the issue of fairness of a trial when the informant himself is the investigating officer. In that case, a three-Judge Bench had stated that where the burden of proof is reversed in NDPS cases, the investigation carried out should be free from apprehension of bias or unfairness. Thus, a fair investigation in such cases requires that informant and investigator must not be the same person..Advocate Abhinav Mukherji, arguing for the State opposed the appeal and stated that the ground of informant being the investigating officer was not raised before the High Court. The conviction, therefore, cannot be tested on a question that the Court did not have the occasion to apply its mind to..Verdict.The Supreme Court noted that the only issue for consideration left before it was whether an informant being the investigating officer vitiates the prosecution or not. The Court examined the precedent of Mohan Lal and observed that the facts of that case were extremely telling insofar as the default of the prosecution was concerned..The Court noted that while the rights of individuals are important, equally important is the societal interest for bringing the offender to book and for the system to send the right message to all in the society..“Individual rights of the accused are undoubtedly important. But equally important is the societal interest for bringing the offender to book and for the system to send the right message to all in the society —be it the lawabiding citizen or the potential offender.”.Human rights are not only of the accused but also of the victim, the Court said..Human Rights’ are not only of the accused but, extent apart, also of the victim, the symbolic member of the society as the potential victim and the society as a whole.”.The judgment in Mohan Lal cannot be used as a springboard by an accused for being catapulted to acquittal, the Court observed..“Societal interest, therefore, mandates that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) cannot be allowed to become a spring board by an accused for being catapulted to acquittal, irrespective of all other considerations pursuant to an investigation and prosecution when the law in that regard was nebulous.”.Criminal jurisprudence mandates balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, the Court said and proceeded to distinguish the present case from the case of Mohan Lal..If the facts in Mohan Lal (supra) were telling with regard to the prosecution, the facts in the present case are equally telling with regard to the accused. There is a history of previous convictions of the appellant also..The Court thus held that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case..“The criminal justice delivery system, cannot be allowed to veer exclusively to the benefit of the offender making it unidirectional exercise. A proper administration of the criminal justice delivery system, therefore requires balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, so that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) is not allowed to become a spring board for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. We therefore hold that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case..Read the Judgment: