Court’s Decision
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the presence and involvement of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and held that “the conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures but it is the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.” Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the appellants.
Facts
An FIR was lodged on 23 December 2012 following a strike by labourers of a factory at Satna, Madhya Pradesh. The strike, led by three individuals including the appellants, was aimed at demanding regularisation, bonus, gratuity, and other employment-related benefits. On the day of the incident, it was alleged that over 250 protestors forcibly entered the factory premises, leading to a law-and-order situation. Police responded by using tear gas. During the chaos, the protestors allegedly set fire to vehicles and injured 12 police personnel and four security guards. A case was registered against 12 named and 350 unnamed individuals under various provisions of the IPC and the PDPP Act. The trial court convicted the appellants, imposing varying terms of imprisonment, fines, and sentencing them to imprisonment ranging from “till rising of the court” to five years.
Issues
- Whether the appellants were identified at the scene of the offence?
- Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the appellants’ role in causing injury, damage, or unlawful assembly?
- Whether conviction under IPC Sections 436, 332, and the PDPP Act could be sustained in absence of specific evidence of damage or identification?
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and convicted the appellants despite significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. It was argued that no cogent evidence established the presence or identity of the appellants, especially appellant no.1. The prosecution failed to produce any witnesses from the factory management, or documents proving ownership or damage to the vehicles. Medical evidence did not support the claim of injuries. It was also argued that the alleged damage and injuries could have resulted from a stampede triggered by the police’s use of tear gas. The seizure memo did not prove the burning of motorcycles, and no chassis or registration numbers were verified.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the appeal and supported the trial court’s findings, arguing that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellants. The testimony of prosecution witnesses and the injuries sustained by police personnel were relied upon to justify the conviction.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court reiterated that criminal jurisprudence requires the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard cannot be diluted merely because the accused are part of a group event. Identification of accused, medical corroboration, and credible evidence regarding property damage are essential.
Precedent Analysis
- Sukliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 15 SCC 745: The Supreme Court held that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favouring the accused must prevail. Conviction without strong evidence of the accused’s presence is unsustainable.
- Peer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 4 SCC 582: Emphasised that absence of proof of presence at the scene warrants acquittal.
Both cases reinforced the principle that prosecution must discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, and presence must be clearly established.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court scrutinised the statements of key prosecution witnesses:
- PW1 (Complainant): His testimony was contradictory. He claimed injury, yet the medical report showed no external or internal injuries. He could not identify the appellants by name.
- PW2 (Constable): Could not identify the appellants. Testified that he only knew the leader’s name from general knowledge.
- PW3 & PW5: Did not identify the appellants. PW5 claimed to know the name from security personnel but could not independently identify the appellant.
- PW7 (Investigating Officer): Admitted he identified appellant no.1 based on newspaper reports and had no personal knowledge.
- PW9 (Doctor): Testified that all injuries were simple and could occur during a stampede, not necessarily from deliberate assault.
The Court noted that the prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses from the factory, did not establish ownership or damage to vehicles, and did not show evidence of loss to public property. Many government witnesses turned hostile. The evidence lacked credibility, and identification of the accused was not proven.
Conclusion
The High Court found the trial court’s findings to be perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case, especially the identity and involvement of the appellants in the incident. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The bail bonds were discharged.
Implications
- Reinforces the necessity of proving identity and presence beyond reasonable doubt in mob violence cases.
- Clarifies that convictions under damage to public property laws require proof of ownership and damage.
- Sets a precedent that courts must rely on reliable and corroborated witness testimony rather than assumptions.
FAQs
1. What was the primary reason for the acquittal of the accused?
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and presence of the accused at the crime scene beyond reasonable doubt, which is essential in criminal cases.
2. Can a person be convicted based on general knowledge or media reports?
No. As per this judgment and Supreme Court precedents, identification must be based on credible and direct evidence, not hearsay or media reports.
3. Is medical evidence essential for proving assault or injury in riot cases?
Yes, especially when injury is alleged. In this case, the doctor’s report showed no injuries, undermining the prosecution’s case.
Summary of Cases Cited
- Sukliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 15 SCC 745: Emphasised presumption of innocence and the need for clear establishment of presence.
- Peer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 4 SCC 582: Held that in absence of credible proof of presence, conviction must fail.
