Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

Supreme Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Murder Case, Allows Trial to Proceed

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, May 18, 2023: In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a murder case, allowing the trial to proceed. The judgment, delivered by Justices Rajesh Bindal and Abhay S. Oka, pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023, filed by Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) against Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others.

The case revolves around the murder of Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi, a resident of Virdi’s Bungalow in Thombarewadi, Lonawala. The incident took place on May 14, 2006, and was registered as FIR No. 46 of 2006 at the Lonawala City Police Station. The victim’s body was discovered in his bedroom, lying in a pool of blood.

Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.), the appellant, challenged the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on July 17, 2013. The High Court had set aside the order of the court below, which had dismissed the application for discharge filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Waheeda Hussain Shattaf.

During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial by referring to statements recorded by the police during the investigation, which exceeded the scope of jurisdiction at the stage of considering an application for discharge. The counsel contended that the High Court failed to give due consideration to the psychological evaluation, including psychological profiling, polygraph testing, and brain electrical oscillations signature profiling (BEOS) conducted on Respondent Nos. 1 and four other aides, which implicated them in the crime.

On the other hand, the counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that it was a blind murder case with no eyewitnesses. They argued that there was no enmity between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased, and that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They contended that the Trial Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction to discharge the accused and that proceeding with the trial would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

After hearing the arguments of both parties and examining the record and relevant papers, the Supreme Court referred to settled principles of law regarding the discharge of an accused. The Court emphasized that at the stage of hearing on the charges, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, and an accused can be discharged only if no offence is made out. The Court further clarified that the truthfulness, sufficiency, and acceptability of the material produced can be evaluated only at the stage of trial.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to consider the evidence collected by the investigating agency in its entirety. The High Court selectively referred to certain statements of witnesses, while ignoring others, and did not adequately consider the results of psychological evaluation and profiling tests conducted on the accused and their aides. The Court noted that the selective consideration of evidence and the failure to evaluate the results of these tests indicated a lack of proper analysis and a non-application of mind by the High Court.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the trial to proceed. The Court held that the High Court had exercised its jurisdiction in a manner that scuttled the trial of a heinous crime, and that it was unjust to discharge the accused without proper consideration of the evidence collected.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of a  thorough evaluation of evidence at the stage of trial and the need to consider the results of scientific tests such as psychological evaluation and profiling. It highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring a fair trial and upholding the principles of justice.

D.D- May 18, 2023

Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.

Latest Legal News