HANSRAJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

CITATION	2024 INSC 318
DATE OF JUDGMENT	19th April 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Hansraj
RESPONDENT	The state of M.P.
BENCH	B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The famous Supreme Court case of Hansraj Vs. State of M.P. is an appeal made by Hansraj (the accused) with Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC as foundation for the appeal, against robbery and causing hurt. The cruelty happened on 12th December 1998, when Bhagu Bai was brutally knocked down and her expensive ornaments were taken away by a stranger. Hansraj was caught two days later, having confessed a taped statement, the police recovered the valuables that were stolen.

The trial ultimately led to the court convicting Hansraj, and he was sentenced for 7 years of rigorous imprisonment as to his main recovery. The judges in the Supreme Court agreed unanimously that the defendant was guilty. Hansraj subsequently went to the Supreme Court asking that the disclosure statement and recovery were not proved properly considering legal backup. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the criminal evidence presented on the case was sufficient to hold Hansraj guilty for the robbery.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On the 12th of December 1998 the complainant, Bhagu Bai, is alleged to have been assaulted and robbed of her silver ornaments by an unknown offender on her way to the field.
2. Hansraj was taken into custody on 14th December 1998 and disclosed some information that led to the recovery of the stolen ornaments. The prosecution stated that Bhagu Bai identified the seized jewels before the presence of an Executive Magistrate, but admitted that the police had indicated them.
3. The IO failed to do the proper disclosure memo as per the legal requirements by quoting the verbatim words of Hansraj. 
4. Also, there was no evidence that they were kept safely until identification of the belongings that were to be returned. The executive magistrate before whom the identification test was made was not called. The only other piece of evidence that could directly tie Hansraj to the crime is the faulty way he allegedly recovered it.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether disclosure statement, purportedly made by Hansraj and substantiated by the Investigating Officer as per legal requirements?
2. What is valid according to the law is the recovery of the stolen ornaments made because of the specific declaration of Hansraj or not? 
3. Whether the test identification of the recovered ornaments by the complainant Bhagu Bai before the Executive Magistrate administratively conducted and sufficiently reliable?
4. Whether there was any other valid evidence other than the alleged improper disclosure and dubious recovery to implicate Hansraj in the crimes of robbery and causing hurt?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The prosecution failed to properly prove the factum of disclosure made by the accused (Hansraj) to the Investigating Officer (PW-12) leading to the recovery of the silver articles allegedly looted from the complainant. 
2. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) did not narrate the exact words spoken by the accused at the time of making the disclosure statement, as required by law.
3. There was no evidence to show that the recovered articles were sealed at the time of recovery or that they were kept secure in the police station’s malkhana until they were subjected to identification before the Executive Magistrate. The executive magistrate, the person supposed to be present at the recovery process of the articles, was not a witness at the same time and could not be examined. 
4. The complainant (PW 3), in the course of cross-examination, however, testified that she could identify the silver articles only after being directed by police officials to point at them during the identification proceedings.
5. Besides the alleged return of the objects and identification of article by the prosecution, the latter presented no other evidence to associate the accused (Hansraj) with the crime.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

In the order of the Supreme Court, the respondent – the State Government of M.P. does not categorically declare its contentions. Despite this, we can point out arguments that might have been the respondent’s by extrapolating from the facts and observations made by the Court.

1. The respondent in the case would have argued that the statement given by the accused regarding the theft from him was valid and sufficient evidence under Section 27 asserting that there was a recovery of the stolen goods because of that statement.
2. The respondent must have contended that the identification of the recovered articles by the complainant (PW-3) before the Executive Magistrate further corroborated the accused’s involvement in the crime.
3. The respondent likely argued that the prosecution had established a credible link between the accused and the crime through the recovery of the stolen articles and their identification by the complainant.
4. The defendant would have claimed that any minor defect or mistake as far as the testimony is concerned should not be given disproportional importance as the whole of the circumstances and evidences should be considered in determining who is exactly guilty.
5. The respondent would have argued that the trial court and the High Court rightly used the evidence and convicted the accused on the basis of the available circumstantial evidence.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court released Hansraj from all the charges under Sections 394 and 397 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution neglected to prove the Hansraj’s discovery statement resulting in assets recovery because the proper procedures were not followed. Moreover, it raised doubts about the custody of the recovered jewellery and reliability of its identification by the complainant, who had admitted that the police had showed them to her.

As there was no other witness except Hansraj and without any other credible evidence linking him to the crimes, the court gave him the benefit of doubt. The conviction of Hansraj by lower courts was dismissed and he was directed to be released from prison.

ANALYSIS

The judgment of the Supreme Court was logically justified this time as it proved the unreasonable actions of the prosecution and the inconsistencies of the evidence against Hansraj. The court was on the right track when it affirmed that the supposed statement disclosed by Hansraj which was generally regarded as the pillar on which the prosecution case stood was not properly recorded and proved as directed by law and previous decisions.

It should be added that the recognition of the recovered ornaments by the defendant, as the complaint claimed, was lacking other proven evidence since she admitted that she could not recognize or name the items without the auxiliary of the police. Iteratively, the disappearance of the Executive Magistrate who presided over the photo identification process as a questioner of that testimony itself reduced its credibility further.

The higher court correctly found that without the accused admitting to disclosure of the crime and the significant doubt over the identification of the missing paintings the only evidence that could be acceptable was something with legal standing of proving that Hansraj had a direct relation with the crimes. With the court’s ruling, there is a strong feeling that this is the most predominant doctrine that says that conviction should not depend on suspicion alone or procedural unfairness, but on verified and well-established evidence.

CONCLUSION

According to the apex court the prosecution could not establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence of Hansraj did not deserve the high quality of evidence expected in a criminal court. Their ability to provide a proper statement of evidence was hindered. Other than that, tracing stolen goods was another difficulty. The victim did not know anybody.

The Supreme Court then concluded that because the case had no similarity with the original charges and of course, the charge was causeless, hence, the convictions from the lower courts were unreliable. Thus, the High Court has concurred with Damanjit’s plea. Hence, the court gave him a release without the punishment for Sections 394 and 397.

REFERENCES

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181002197/ 

This Article is written by Aman Raj, a student of Chanakya National Law University, Patna (CNLU); 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.