Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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