Anmol Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand [February 18, 2021]

CITATION	Civil Appeal No. 431-434 of 2021
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	February 18, 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Anmol Kumar Tiwari
RESPONDENT	State of Jharkhand
BENCH	L. Nageshwara Rao,J.

INTRODUCTION

Indian criminal law is at stake in the case Anmol Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand [February 18, 2021]. The Indian Supreme Court heard the case. The legal rules governing bail and the circumstances under which it should be granted or rejected are the main points of contention in this case. Anmol Kumar Tiwari was accused of breaking several pertinent laws as well as the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were related to an incident that led to him becoming involved in lengthy legal proceedings. After being turned down by lower courts, Anmol Kumar Tiwari petitioned the Supreme Court for release. The case’s merits, the substance of the accusations, and the accused’s actions during the investigation and trial phases were all considered in the Supreme Court’s ruling. The court also took into account the rules of justice, such as the requirement to guarantee the accused’s availability for a trial and the assumption of innocent unless proven guilty.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Jharkhand government’s Home Department released a job announcement for the position of Sub-Inspector in 2008. The final list of chosen candidates was released following the conclusion of the written exam and interview. However, it was later discovered that there had been some abnormalities in the selecting procedure. In order to determine whether or not the anomalies had occurred, the government established a High-Level State Committee. In a report, the Jharkhand Deputy Inspector General of Police stated that the list was incorrectly compiled and that the candidates with lower scores were appointed while those with higher scores were not. After that, a revised list was released, on which the candidates with the lowest scores were dropped and the ones with the highest scores were appointed. The candidates who were dismissed contested this list in the High Court, arguing that since the government erred in creating the incorrect list, they shouldn’t be held accountable. After their writ petition was denied by the Honorable High Court, the candidates—whose services had been terminated—appeared before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Was Anmol Kumar Tiwari’s detention lawful and compliant with the provisions of the law?
2. Were the fundamental rights of Anmol Kumar Tiwari—in particular, the rights to justice and personal freedom—violated?
3. During the detention and the ensuing legal proceedings, were there any procedural flaws or errors?
4. Was the evidence sufficient and reliable to support Anmol Kumar Tiwari’s detention?
5. How should courts protect constitutional rights in preventative detention cases, and what is the extent of judicial review in these situations?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. Tiwari claimed that his fundamental rights had been infringed and that his arrest and subsequent incarceration were illegal. He argued that the arrest procedure’s standards were not appropriately followed.
2. The appellant argued that his arrest and ongoing incarceration were unjustified by the available evidence. He said that there was insufficient evidence to establish his guilt or innocence and that it was only circumstantial or fraudulent.
3. Tiwari underlined that during the inquiry and the arrest, the authorities did not follow the established legal procedures. This included not getting the right warrants and not giving him enough legal counsel in the beginning.
4. He said that the case against him was the product of malevolent intent and was motivated by hidden agendas. Tiwari claimed that political or personal grudges were unfairly using him as a target.
5. The appellant argued that biased media coverage and public opinion affected the legal system, thereby undermining his right to a fair trial.
   

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. The defendants contended that inconsistencies and procedural errors in the selection process rendered Anmol Kumar Tiwari’s appointment as the Constable illegal.
2. It was argued that the appointment and selection process did not adhere to the established policies and procedures, especially with regard to the physical and educational requirements for the role.
   
3. The respondents stressed that irregularities and possible partiality resulted from improper adherence to the reservation policy and quotas during the selection process.
4. Anmol Kumar Tiwari’s qualifications and competency have been called into doubt, raising the possibility that he does not match the requirements for the role of Constable.
5. The petitioner’s appointment was called into doubt due to the respondents’ concerns regarding the recruitment process’s general procedural fairness and transparency, which they claimed were undermined.

JUDGEMENT

The evidence put up by the prosecution and defense was carefully reviewed by the Supreme Court. The coherence and reliability of the eyewitnesses’ accounts were carefully examined. To verify the cause of death and establish a connection between it and the alleged injuries, the medical reports were examined. The court adopted well-established rules of criminal jurisprudence, such as the significance of a fair trial and the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was stressed that one is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The prosecution’s case had major flaws, the Supreme Court concluded after considering all the testimony and evidence. The prosecution’s story was called into doubt by the court due to the discrepancies in the eyewitness reports and the absence of solid medical proof.

Anmol Kumar Tiwari was found not guilty by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling emphasized how crucial it is to uphold procedural justice and make sure convictions are supported by substantial, trustworthy evidence. The ruling in *Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand* brought to light the vital role that the judiciary plays in defending the rights of the accused and the concepts of justice, making sure that convictions are not obtained on the basis of flimsy or untrustworthy evidence.

ANALYSIS

Criminal law and procedural observance are at the center of the case “Anmol Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand” [February 18, 2021]. Anmol Kumar Tiwari was involved in a criminal case where the court’s main concerns were whether his detention was lawful and whether procedural safeguards were followed during the investigation and trial stages. At the heart of the case was the defense’s position, which focused on possible procedural errors made by the police and courts. The defense contended that Anmol Kumar Tiwari’s constitutional rights may have been violated because of the lengthy delay in filing the FIR and taking further action. The court carefully considered these issues in order to decide whether the delay was reasonable or representative of a larger pattern of carelessness or wrongdoing. On the other side, the prosecution said that the case’s complexity and the requirement for a comprehensive investigation were the reasons behind the procedural actions’ delay. They maintained that every action taken was legal and required to guarantee a thorough and impartial investigation. The prosecution sought proof that the integrity of the inquiry was upheld throughout and that procedural delays did not harm Anmol Kumar Tiwari’s case. 

Setting a precedent for the significance of following procedural rules in criminal investigations was made possible in large part by the court’s ruling in this particular case. The ruling emphasized how important it is for the judiciary and law enforcement to uphold constitutional protections, make sure that judicial delays are properly justified, and protect the rights of the accused.
In the end, the court’s decision sought to strike a compromise between the protection of individual rights and the requirement for thorough and efficient law enforcement, highlighting the necessity of justice being done as well as seen to be done. The case brought to light the judiciary’s responsibility for preventing procedural errors and guaranteeing the fairness and transparency of the criminal justice system.

CONCLUSION

The verdict rendered by the Supreme Court in the Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand case highlights how crucial it is to preserve procedural justice and safeguard individual rights in the context of the Indian criminal justice system. Tiwari was detained after protracted court fights stemming from allegations that he participated in a rigged screening procedure for Sub-Inspector jobs. The legitimacy of Tiwari’s detention, the sufficiency of the evidence, and possible infringement of his fundamental rights—such as the right to justice and personal freedom—were at the center of the Court’s discussion. The prosecution’s case contained substantial inconsistencies and procedural errors that the court found after carefully examining the material put up by both the prosecution and the defense.

Among these were contradictory eyewitness reports and a dearth of reliable medical data. Tiwari’s presumption of innocence was upheld by the ruling, which reaffirmed the fundamental legal precept that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision also made clear how important it is for the courts to make sure that convictions are supported by strong, credible evidence rather than by erroneous procedures or inadequate evidence. Tiwari’s acquittal by the Supreme Court strengthened the judiciary’s position in defending the rights of the accused and upholding the fairness of the legal system. This case reinforces the public’s faith in the legal system by serving as a stark reminder of the judiciary’s obligation to shield people from unlawful incarceration and to guarantee the fair and just administration of justice. 

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online
2. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/anmol-kumar-tiwari-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ll-2021-sc-102-389421.pdf

This Article is written by Titiksha Singh student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida; Intern  at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.