MOHD. RIJWAN V. STATE OF HARYANA

INTRODUCTION

Mohammad Rijwan v. The State of Haryana is a case that revolves around the nuances and different parts of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant-accused was found guilty by the Sessions Court of the charges specified in Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). For the offence covered by Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he was given a life term in jail. For the offence covered by Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he was sentenced to three years of hard imprisonment. The contested judgement from the High Court upheld his conviction and imprisonment. The appellant-accused thus approached the Supreme Court to prove himself innocent. By the ruling in this case, future legal processes pertaining to the issues in the Indian legal system would be influenced, which clarifies the interpretation and implementation of pertinent legal laws and concepts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Chander Bhushan, the brother of the deceased Vidya Sagar Bhushan, complained that his brother went out on a motorcycle but did not return home. According to the prosecution, the deceased and the appellant drank alcohol on February 17, 2004. The deceased and the appellant then rode motorcycles together. The deceased was riding as a pillion alongside the appellant, who was operating the motorbike. Pyare Lal (hereinafter PW-1) sustained a slight injury in a small motorbike accident. Hari and others, present there, responded to PW-1’s cry for assistance, and through their intervention, the appellant and PW-1 were able to resolve the issue. Consequently, the appellant gave PW-1 Rs. 50 in order to purchase the medications. As a result, PW-1 is the witness who can support the hypothesis of their last together.

Three of the deceased’s and the appellant’s friends were intoxicated with alcohol, according to the prosecution’s case. The deceased was then attacked in the head by the appellant and two other people during an altercation that ended in his death. Alongside a hand pump, three of them excavated a hole where the deceased’s body was buried. The appellant made a memorandum of disclosure, according to the prosecution’s argument, as a result of which the dead body could be exhumed.

Since there was a charge of murder, the cross-examinations and the trials held by the Trial Court held the accused guilty of the offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court, on being appealed, upheld the same impugned order. Therefore, the aggrieved appellant approached the Supreme Court for Justice.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Is the impugned order valid?

JUDGEMENT

From the observations, it was observed that the statements given by the PW-1 and PW-2 were contradictory to each other. After scrutiny of the statement of PW-1, it was found that he did not know the appellant before the incident happened and could only recognise him by his face. Also it was found that according to his statement the incident occurred at 4:00 PM. The statement of PW-2 was that the appellant worked at the construction site (since he was a contractor of PW-2) and was present there on the date of incident at the stipulated time, from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Thus, the sight of the incident by the PW-1 seems to weaken here. The fact that Hari was not examined as he was an important witness to the theory of last seen together and the fact that the contradictory statements given by the Witnesses, made the Judges look to the other side of the story.

It is acknowledged that the test identification parade was not held, and PW-1 was unfamiliar with the appellant prior to the occurrence. If the accused is unknown to the witnesses before the occurrence, a test identification parade is performed as part of the inquiry. This test is used to find out if the witness can distinguish the accused individual from a group of people who seem alike. While not always certain, the eyewitness’s identification of the accused during the test identification parade may support the accused’s identification by the witness in court. But in this case, rather than conducting a test identification parade, PW-1 was summoned to the Superintendent of Police’s office, where the appellant was shown to him. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt regarding PW-1’s identification of the appellant in court.

As a result, they decided that the prosecution had not proven the appellant’s accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeal was successful, and the impugned judgement was overturned. The accused crime against the appellant was dropped and the appellant’s bail bonds were revoked.

ANALYSIS

When we come to the analysis of the Judgement we should first understand the Theory of Last Seen Together. When there is such a little time difference between when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead, the last seen argument applies and it becomes impossible for anybody other than the accused to be the criminal. This is called the theory of last seen together. In some situations, it could be challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dead was last seen with the accused when there is a significant lapse in time and there is a chance that other people could have intervened.

The Theory of Last Seen Together was not taken into consideration because the physical witnesses present contradicted each other while giving their respective statements. So, the benefit of doubt went to the appellant-accused. Also, the due procedure that is having a proper test identification parade and other necessary details were sort of overlooked by the respective authorities. So according to the researcher, the decision given by the SC Bench to the appeal was accurate and upto the mark.

Now, when we come to the logic behind having the Theory of Last Seen Together, it exists to clear any doubts or to give a proper and solid evidence to prove the accused guilty of the crime. But one thing to be noticed here is that it is based upon the assumption that there might not have been any interference by any third person because the time period was so minimal that there does not arise any possibility of any interference. It is also taken into consideration when there is no other solid evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. But, the major problem behind the theory is that it can get problematic for the accused when he has no solid evidence to prove that he was not there behind the crime. When seen from Jurisprudential point of view, when taken into consideration that it is based purely upon an assumption and the fact that it is not a strong evidentiary theory to prove the mens rea of the accused behind the crime, the theory seems to be failing here. The Theory was relied upon in the particular case as there was a statement which contradicted the Theory but in cases where such circumstances are not present, the above two points shall be considered by the Bench while deciding upon the ratio of the case.    

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case Mohd. Rijwan v. State of Haryana, though simple in facts, does explore the basic and fundamental concepts of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby becomes one of the major authorities for the subsequent cases falling under this domain. The case not only brings clarity on points of identification and other tests but also reiterates the position and rights of the accused indirectly. Thus, the case serves as an important precedent for the upcoming litigations in these aspects.

Written by Kush Shanker an intern under 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.

Admin