Prosecution For ‘Amorphous And Transitory’ Charge With ‘Conjectural Or Hypothetical’ Evidence Not Possible: SC [Read Judgment]

The charge for which the appellant finally has been convicted wears a new complexion different from the one with which he had been arraigned at the initiation of the trial, the bench observed in the case.

A person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory and further on evidence that is conjectural or hypothetical, the Supreme Court has observed in Vasant Rao Guhe vs State of MP, while setting aside a concurrent conviction of a public servant in a corruption case.

In the instant case, the public servant was accused of possessing assets of Rs. 7, 94,033, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The figures ultimately arrived at by the trial court while convicting the accused was patently different from those mentioned in the charge framed against him and on which he was put on trial.

A three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, also comprising Justice Amitava Roy and Justice AM Khanwilkar, noticed this and observed that the accused was convicted by the trial court on a charge different from the one framed against him and that, too, on the basis of calculations made by it by applying inferences and guess works.

“The vitiating infirmity of speculative assumptions in favour of the prosecution and against the appellant therefore afflicted its eventual determination as well,” the bench said.

It further observed: “The charge for which the appellant finally has been convicted wears a new complexion different from the one with which he had been arraigned at the initiation of the trial. The appellant thus for all practical purposes was subjected to a trial involving fleeting frames of accusations of which he was denied prior notice. This is clearly opposed to the fundamental precepts of a criminal prosecution.”

The bench, setting aside the conviction, observed: “A person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory and further on evidence that is conjectural or hypothetical. The appellant in the determinations before the Courts below has been subjected to a trial in which both the charges and evidence on aspects with vital bearing thereon lacked certitude, precision and unambiguity.”