In Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2011 - SC - ‘Appellate court must notify accused before altering or adding charges’: Supreme Court sets aside murder conviction in triple murder case
Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal [09-10-2023]

Read Order: Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of M.P.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, October 10, 2023: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for destroying evidence in a triple murder case, while setting aside his conviction for murder.

In the present appeal, the appellant had been convicted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.

The case involved a triple murder of Uma Prasad, Vinod Kumar, and Munau @ Anant Kishore Khare. The incident took place on 2nd June 1987. Vinod Kumar had taken his brother Munau to the village of Naugaon for medical treatment on a scooter. When they didn't return by 5 pm, Uma Prasad Khare, the father of Vinod Kumar and Munau, organized a search for his sons. During the search near the Hanuman temple, they encountered the accused individuals who were armed with firearms, farsa, axe, and ballam. The appellant (accused no.2) and accused no.16 were armed with spears and stopped Uma Prasad, causing him to fall from his bicycle. Subsequently, accused nos. 3, 5, and 7 (who were later acquitted) exhorted the other accused to chop Uma Prasad into pieces. The actual act of assaulting and killing Uma Prasad was attributed to accused no.1 and accused no.14. Furthermore, the appellant and accused no.1 were accused of dragging Uma Prasad's body and disposing of it in a well.

The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that the High Court had committed an error by rendering a judgment on the appellant's conviction without affording the appellant or their advocate an opportunity to be heard. The bench stated that upon realizing that the appellant's appointed advocate was absent, the High Court should have taken the initiative to appoint legal representation to advocate for the appellant's case.

The bench also pointed out that in accordance with Section 386 of the Cr.P.C., Appellate Courts possess wide powers, including the power to modify or add charges under Section 216. However, when the Appellate Court intends to make such alterations or additions that could potentially prejudice the accused, it is imperative to adhere to basic principles of natural justice. It was observed that in the specific context of this case, where the appellant's advocate was absent during the hearing, the High Court should not have altered the charge from Section 302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC to a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC without notifying the appellant or their advocate. This lack of notice resulted in significant prejudice to the appellant.

The bench also highlighted that according to Section 141 of the IPC, an unlawful assembly must consist of five or more persons. Given that the High Court had upheld the conviction of only four individuals while acquitting all others, it was clear that the essential requirement of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 was not established. Consequently, the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC were not applicable in this case.

The bench concluded that there was no evidence to establish the presence of a common intention, which is a fundamental requirement for Section 34 of the IPC. In this case, there was no overlap between a common object and a common intention. As a result, the appellant's conviction under Section 302, read with Section 34, had to be set aside.

However, the bench acknowledged that the testimony of two eyewitnesses was highly consistent regarding the appellant's involvement in dragging the deceased's body and disposing of it in a well. Consequently, there was substantial justification for upholding the appellant's conviction for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC, which pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence related to the crime. Therefore, the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the IPC had to be upheld.

As a result, the appeal was partially successful. The court decided to set aside the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC was upheld and confirmed.