Criminal Trial | Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, Crl.A. No. 1006 of 2010 06-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Ashok Bhushan & Navin Sinha, JJ. Crl.A. No. 1006 of 2010 Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala with Crl.A. No. 1007 of 2010 State of Karnataka v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, August 06, 2019.

Criminal Trial - The failure of the prosecution to investigate the F.I.R. lodged by the accused with regard to the same occurrence or to place their injury reports on record was merely a defective investigation.

The fact that an F.I.R. was lodged by the accused with regard to the same occurrence, the failure of the police to explain why it was not investigated, coupled with the admitted fact that the accused were also admitted in the hospital for treatment with regard to injuries sustained in the same occurrence, but the injury report was not brought on record and suppressed by the prosecution, creates sufficient doubts which the prosecution has been unable to answer. The failure of the prosecution to investigate the F.I.R. lodged by the accused with regard to the same occurrence or to place their injury reports on record was merely a defective investigation. The failure of the prosecution to act fairly and place all relevant materials with regard to the occurrence before the court enabling it to take just and fair decision has caused serious prejudice to them. A fair criminal trial encompasses a fair investigation at the pre-trial stage, a fair trial where the prosecution does not conceal anything from the court and discharges its obligations in accordance with law impartially to facilitate a just and proper decision by the court in the larger interest of justice concluding with a fairness in sentencing also. A defective investigation shall be completely different from no investigation at all coupled with suppression of the injury report arising out of another F.I.R with regard to the same occurrence. [Paras 11, 12 & 14]

Criminal Trial - An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution.

The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that a defence may not have been taken by an accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything. [Paras 9 & 10]

Petitioner's Advocate : Rajesh Mahale

Respondent's Advocate : E.R. Sumathy