Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

High Court Overturns Conviction Due to Failure to Properly Present Incriminating Evidence, Citing Violation of Natural Justice

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu overturned a conviction, citing the failure to properly present incriminating evidence and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The judgment, pronounced on June 16, 2023, highlights the importance of fair trial proceedings and the need to adhere to legal procedures.

The appellant, Raman Masih, had appealed against his conviction for offenses under section 376 (rape) and section 456 (lurking house trespass) of the Ranbir Penal Code. The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the incriminating evidence brought against the appellant had not been adequately put to him during the trial, as required by Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Quoting from the judgment, the court noted, "The incriminating evidence brought on record has not been put to the appellant in accordance with law... This provision is an embodiment of the principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard." The failure to properly present the incriminating evidence resulted in prejudice to the appellant and compromised the fairness of the trial.

The court further highlighted that during the examination of the accused, the trial court did not specifically confront the appellant with the specific incriminating statements made by the prosecution witnesses, which is a fundamental part of a fair trial. This irregularity, as emphasized in previous Supreme Court judgments, can vitiate the trial and impact the appreciation of evidence.

Considering the passage of time since the incident, the High Court concluded that it would be unjust to remand the case for further examination of the appellant after a significant period. The judgment underscores the need to conduct trial proceedings in a manner that upholds the principles of natural justice and ensures fairness.

This decision serves as a reminder to the legal fraternity and the judiciary about the importance of properly presenting evidence and giving the accused a meaningful opportunity to explain adverse circumstances. The adherence to procedural safeguards and principles of fairness is essential to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The case also highlights the significance of precedent, as the court referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the necessity of putting all relevant questions and material circumstances to the accused during the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The High Court's ruling in this case not only protects the rights of the accused but also upholds the integrity of the justice system. It serves as a reminder that justice can only be served when the fundamental principles of natural justice are upheld throughout the legal process.

Date of Decision: 16th June 2023 

Raman Masih  vs State of J&K

Latest Legal News