prejudice to accused - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence

14Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence

The Supreme Court held that a defective Section 313 CrPC statement, with only generic questions failing to put specific incriminating circumstances, causes grave prejudice and vitiates trial. Non-examination of a material Investigating Officer attracts adverse inference. Subsequent FIR superseding the original constitutes an embellished statement under Section 161 CrPC. Defence witnesses carry equal evidentiary value to prosecution witnesses. Facts Of The Case: On 11th May 1990, Gajendra Prasad Gupta was assaulted and fatally injured while returning from a village fair. His father, Rameshwar Sahu, initially gave a Fardbeyan on 12th May 1990 before ASI R. Paswan, which was treated as FIR. This statement described an altercation at the sweet stall and a subsequent attack by three uni...

Supreme Court Slams Special Treatment, Orders Joint Trial for All Accused in Nuh Violence Case

The Supreme Court held that segregating the trial of an accused solely based on their status as an MLA is legally unsustainable. Such an order violates the statutory scheme for joint trials under Sections 218-223 CrPC when offences arise from the same transaction and common evidence. It also infringes upon the fundamental rights to equality under Article 14 and a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The direction for a separate charge sheet was also quashed as it exceeds the court's jurisdiction. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two FIRs (Nos. 149 and 150 of 2023) registered at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh, concerning large-scale communal violence that occurred on July 31, 2023. The appellant, Mamman Khan, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) f...

Supreme Court Simplifies Amendment Rules for NI Act Complaints

The Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint can be amended post-cognizance if it cures a curable infirmity and causes no prejudice to the accused. The amendment should not alter the complaint's fundamental nature. The test of prejudice is the cardinal factor, and procedural rules are subservient to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bansal Milk Chilling Centre, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that three cheques issued by the respondents, Rana Milk Food Private Ltd., for a sum of ₹14 lakhs were dishonored. The complaint stated the transaction was for the purchase of "Desi Ghee (milk products)." After summons were issued and the complainant's chief-examination was concluded, the appellant sought to amend th...