Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

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

Similar News