Status of being rich and poor doesn’t matter in the eyes of law
Table of content:
- Introduction
- Somesh Chaurasia V/S State Of Madhya Pradesh [LL 2021 SC 317]
- Background of the case
- Statutory Provisions
- Issues Raised
- Judgment passed
- Conclusion
Introduction
The notion of Independence of Judiciary implies that a judge is free to pass his/ her decision. It means that a judge must be independent of political influence or any other external pressure while determining and adjudicating any matter that comes before it. Independence of Judiciary also implies that a superior judge cannot make pressure on a judge while he/ she dealing with a matter.
Somesh Chaurasia V/S State Of Madhya Pradesh [LL 2021 SC 317]
Background of the case
Govind Singh, accused of the present case was accused of murdering Devendra Chaurasia, congress leader. Govind Singh was the husband of Ramabai, Madhya Pradesh BSP MLA.
The accused has been convicted under section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment to life. On February 3rd, 2016 High Court passed an order that the sentence passed by the session court shall be suspended during the proceeding of appeal under section 389 (1) CRPC.
Two applications were made before the Division Bench of the High Court:-
- Application for revocation of the High Court order passed on 3rd February 2016.
- Application for cancellation of Bail.
The application for bail was filed by the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The state of Madhya Pradesh sought an application for cancellation of bail on the following grounds:-
- There are two other convictions of the second respondent on the charge of murder.
- Despite this the alleged accused is also convicted under section 399 and section 402 of IPC as well as Section 25 (1) (1B) (a) of the Arms Act.
- An F.I.R No. 413/ 2019 was lodged by the appellant alleging that the accused had murdered his father when he was on bail.
Paragraph 8 of the application made by the State of Madhya Pradesh reads as follow:-
“At this stage, it would be relevant to detail the three convictions suffered by the appellant. The same are detailed hereunder:
(a) It is submitted that in the first crime, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased Rajendra Pathak on 13.10.1998 who was going on his scooter and was confronted by the appellant and co-accused Chandu Thakur who were coming on a motorcycle from the opposite direction. At the relevant point of time the appellant Govind Singh fired through Katta on the deceased Rajendra Pathak which hit the deceased on his chest. After receiving the said shot the deceased ran to save his life and on noticing the same co-accused Chandu Thakur fired a shot which hit the deceased on his back. The deceased Rajendra Pathak succumbed to the said injuries. Based on the said incident, session trial was instituted and appellant was convicted for the murder of Rajendra Pathak and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 30.09.2008. It is thereafter Cr.A No.2353/2008 was filed by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court. It is also relevant to mention herein that the similarity of the present case with a case relating to deceased Rajendra Pathak is that the deceased in the present case Pappu @ Ramakant Pathak and Kailash Pathak were all belonging to the same family.
(b) It is submitted that in the second crime, the appellant along with others committed the murder of Munna Vishwakarma. Based on the said incident, Sessions Trial No. 113/2005 was instituted and the appellant was convicted for the murder of Munna vide Judgment dated 27.10.2015. It is thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 3108/2015 was filed by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court.
(c) To put it differently, it can thus be seen that the appellant committed two crimes punishable under Section 302 IPC on the same date i.e. 11.5.2004 viz. the present case in which Ramakant Pathak and Kailash Pathak were killed and Munna Vishwakarma in respect to which Criminal Appeal No. 3108/2015 is pending.
(d) It would also be relevant to mention herein that the appellant committed another crime for offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1) (1B)(a) of the Arms Act. In the said case too, the appellant was convicted and thereafter filed a Criminal Appeal No. 1984 /2011, in which case also his sentence was suspended. It is thus clear that the appellant has been a serious threat to the society and that has been continuously committing criminal offences.”
Further, Paragraph 10 of the application referred to the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant reads as follow:-
“it is also relevant to mention herein that after grant of bail in the said criminal appeals, the appellant has again committed murder of one Devendra Chaurasiva on 15.03.2019 and an F.I.R. to that respect has been registered against the appellant on 15.03.2019 itself for offences punishable U/s 294. 323, 324, 307, 147, 148, 149, 506 of I.P.C. pertinently, since the deceased died after registration of F.I.R., offence U/s 302 has been added in the present crime. Copy of the F.I.R dated 15.03.2019 bearing crime No. 143/2019 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-R/1.”
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ordered the investigation in the said case which has to be completed within 3 months, i.e., 90 days and if the accused is found guilty of the offense then he will be immediately taken into consideration and proceeding shall be followed.
Statutory provisions
- Section 302 IPC
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 399 IPC
“Whoever makes, any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 402 IPC
“Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 25 (1) (1B) (a) of the Arms Act
“Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 25 [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [one year].”
- Section 319 Crpc
“Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(a) The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
- Section 389 (1) Crpc
“Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.”
Issues raised
Whether the shield provides under section 319 of Crpc to protect the accused who is charged under section 302 IPC can be challenged?
Judgment Passed
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprises Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah set aside the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court granting bail to the murder accused Govind Singh who is the husband of M.P. MLA Ramabai Singh. The Hon’ble Court held that the High Court had misapplied the legal principles.
The Bench further held that the investigation must be carried out by the police within three months and if the accused’s involvement has been found in the commission of the crime then he shall be taken into custody. The court added that the accused neither threaten the police nor tried to fabricate and tampering the evidence and witnesses. Further, it was also observed that the accused since the order passed by the High Court never produced before the court. A warrant was issued for his arrest.
The ASJ expressed a serious apprehension against the accused and the Superintendent of Police by stating that:
“The action in this case is being taken in compliance with the directions given by Hon. Supreme Court expeditiously. But accused persons are highly influential political persons and have raised false allegations against me and made application for transfer of case before Hon. District Judge which was found false and Hon. District Judge had dismissed the application with cost and being contemptuous. But like accused persons, now Police Superintendent Damoh had connived with his subordinates and made false and fabricated pressure on me. From the above such acts it is clear and I am confident that accused persons with Police Superintendent Damoh had colluded with his subordinates to frame serious charges against me in future or any unpleasant incident can be done with me.”
The court take a serious note of the statement of ASJ and made the following remark:
“The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 8 February 2021 indicates that he is being pressurized by the Superintendent of Police, Damoh, who, together with his subordinates, is attempting to pressurize the judicial officer. The judicial officer has expressed the apprehension that the accused who are “highly influential political persons” have raised false allegations against him and applied for transfer of the pending case which was dismissed by the District Judge after it was found to be false. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has apprehended that he may be subjected to an “unpleasant incident” in the future.”
On the above contention, the apex court makes a remark that two parallel legal systems cannot be formed one for rich and one for poor. The Court ordered DGP of Madhya Pradesh “to immediately ensure the arrest of the second respondent and report compliance by filing a personal affidavit in this Court”
In this context the DGP response that despite exercising their best efforts police are unable to arrest the second defendant. Upon visualizing the previous order court directed DGP to take mandatory steps to compliance with the previous order of the court. And DGP again needs to file an affidavit after compliance with the order by mentioning the date and cause upon which the security is giving to the accused and the state has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The apex court by the way of the present case clarifies that the Indian Legal System is neutral for everyone irrespective of their financial background or their influential connection. Also, Article 14 of the constitution provides that every citizen of India in the territory of India have a right to receive equal protection of the law and it is the duty of the court to maintain the supremacy of the constitution bring the custodian of the constitution and for that, a judgment of a judge cannot be affected by the influence of other people.