Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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