Presumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty Not Just Legal Principle But A Fundamental Human Right: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the...
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
“Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not just a legal principle but a fundamental human right. While there are statutory exceptions to this rule, it forms the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. In assessing guilt, the nature, seriousness, and gravity of the offence must be carefully considered. However, in cases where the statute does not explicitly place the burden of proof on the accused, it unequivocally rests with the prosecution. Only in exceptional circumstances, as provided by specific statutes, does the burden shift to the accused. Even when a statute presumes guilt, it must meet the standards of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."
Background
As per the facts, the appellants -accused one, two and three have approached the High Court challenging their conviction by the Sessions Court under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means), 341(punishment for wrongful restraint), and 302 (punishment for murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The Sessions Court had found that the appellants inflicted stab injury wounds that caused the death of the victim and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The appellants contended that the prosecution had not placed a true version of the incident before the Court. It was also stated that there are serious omissions and discrepancies in the statement of persecution witnesses. It was submitted that prosecution evidence to prove the recovery of the weapon is also unreliable.
Findings
The Court observed there must be a cautious, circumspect and careful judicial approach while dealing with a murder trial under Section 302 of the IPC. It stated that an appellate court before confirming the conviction of a life sentence must examine evidence and relevant materials carefully. It went on to state that an unrealistic judicial approach must not be adopted to scrutinize mere variations or minor discrepancies from the testimony of witnesses.
On analysing the evidence tendered by the prosecution and defence, the Court stated that the prosecution failed to establish the scene of occurrence since there was no trace of blood present anywhere at the location, despite the prosecution's claim that the deceased had sustained stab injuries there. It further observed that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case and that the defence succeeded in giving reasonable doubts regarding the prosecution case.
The Court found that the prosecution has not revealed the true facts and the investigating agency has also deliberately attempted to put forth a specific version of the incident to conceal the true facts. Relying upon Apex Court decisions, it was stated that the duty of the investigation agency is not to bolster the prosecution case but to uncover the truth.
The Court said, “A fair trial for the accused, a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, becomes meaningless if the investigation in a murder case raises serious concerns about its fairness. The prosecution bears the responsibility to clearly demonstrate that the investigation was fair and judicious, without any circumstances that could raise doubts about its credibility. The obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt encompasses the requirement for a fair investigation; without it, there can be no fair trial.”
The Court further stated that the prosecution had not placed the true facts before the Court and had placed a distorted version before the Court. It stated that the prosecution must place all relevant materials before the Court even those that are beneficial to the accused. It said, “A conviction secured without adhering to the fair principles of criminal justice would be anathema. The presumption of innocence of the alleged accused is fundamental in nature in the criminal justice delivery system until the charges framed against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt by way of credible, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence.”
The Court went on to state that even the recoveries effected do not advance the prosecution case. The Court concluded that the prosecution case suffers from serious inconsistencies and deficiencies dehors to the lapses in investigation by the investigating agency.
The Court stated that the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and they cannot fulfil their obligations by merely pointing out suspicious circumstances. It stated that the conviction of the accused is not sustainable on surmises, conjectures or even strong suspicions.
The Court thus ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the conviction of the appellants.
Case Number: CRL.A NO. 489 OF 2017, CRL.A NO. 381 OF 2017
Case Title: Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555