MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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