Weakness in defence cannot become strength of prosecution, Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

In a judgment passed yesterday, the Supreme Court has highlighted that the burden of proof cast on the prosecution in a criminal case cannot be hinged on whether the accused has adopted a strong defence. As noted in the judgment passed by the Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha,.“… If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything.”.The observation was made while dismissing appeals filed against a High Court verdict in an alleged case of murder. In the backdrop of a civil suit concerning a property dispute, a scuffle had broken out between a man and a group of persons in 2002, leading to the man’s death..The High Court had acquitted two of the four charged with murder in the case. As for the remaining two accused, the High Court had altered the offence charged from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (punishable under Section 304, Indian Penal Code), for which they were served a 7 year imprisonment sentence..In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that certain “defections” in the investigation carried out in the case would not justify dropping the murder charges..The appellants argued that the attack by the accused group was premeditated, given that the men were armed with dangerous weapons. It was also contended that the accused had not raised any self-defence plea or proved that the attack took place in the spur of the moment. It was argued that even if the plea of self-defence were raised, it would be upon the accused to prove the same..The Bench, however, disagreed with this view, pointing out that the burden of proof placed on the prosecution in a criminal case would not be displaced by merely citing a weak defence. The Court reiterated that unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused/defence would get the benefit of doubt. On this aspect, the judgment notes,.“The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. .An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.“.In this regard, the Court also cited the case of Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, wherein it was noted,.“… When the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.” .While this is the case, the Court noted that there were several unexplained loopholes in the prosecution’s narrative in this case..“The fact that an F.I.R. was lodged by the accused with regard to the same occurrence, the failure of the police to explain why it was not investigated, coupled with the admitted fact that the accused were also admitted in the hospital for treatment with regard to injuries sustained in the same occurrence, but the injury report was not brought on record and suppressed by the prosecution, creates sufficient doubts which the prosecution has been unable to answer.”.Terming the same as a “failure of the prosecution” rather than merely a case of defective investigation, the Court found that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeals, while observing,.“We are of the considered opinion that the failure of the prosecution to act fairly and place all relevant materials with regard to the occurrence before the court enabling it to take just and fair decision has caused serious prejudice to them. A fair criminal trial encompasses a fair investigation at the pre-trial stage, a fair trial where the prosecution does not conceal anything from the court and discharges its obligations in accordance with law impartially to facilitate a just and proper decision by the court in the larger interest of justice concluding with a fairness in sentencing also.”.[Read the Judgment].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.