caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Shakuntala Shukla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 September, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2021
Shakuntala Shukla …Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another …Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 878 OF 2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 877 OF 2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2021
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) dated 08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.07
17:04:44 IST
Reason:
1405/2018, 1496/2018 and 1398/2018, by which the High Court has
1
released the private respondents herein – accused on bail, pending the
aforesaid criminal appeals, the original complainant – widow of the
deceased (victim) has preferred the present appeals.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the judgment and order
dated 08.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2018 is the order first
in line by which the main accused – Swaminath Yadav came to be
released on bail and so far as the other accused are concerned, they are
released on bail on the ground of parity and order passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 1283 of 2018 (in the case of Swaminath Yadav). Therefore,
Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021 arising out of the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018 is
treated as a lead appeal.
2.1 That all the private respondents herein – accused have been
convicted by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections
302/149, 201 r/w Section 120B IPC arising out of Case Crime No.
103/96, Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia and they are sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, Ballia vide judgment(s) and order(s) dated 08.02.2018 and
09.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1999 (State v. Vikrama
Yadav and others).
2
Facts in nutshell
3. That the dead body of one Kripa Shankar Shukla alias Bajrang
Shukla was found lying in the well of one Chandramani Pandey on
28.10.1995 at 10:00 a.m; that an application was moved at the police
station Bansdeeh, District Ballia; that the police party prepared the
inquest report on 15.11.1995, however, there was no proper
investigation carried out by the police officer of police station Bansdeeh,
District Ballia; that some villagers sent the application to his Excellency
the Governor for impartial investigation of the case; that on 13.12.1995,
the appellant herein – Shakuntala Shukla (wife of the deceased) moved
an application before his Excellency the President of India with the facts
that she is a widow of Kripa Shankar Shukla (deceased) and her
husband was murdered in the night of 26.10.1995 when he was coming
back from Bansdeeh to his village Adar and thereafter the dead body
was thrown in the well to create confusion; that on the said application
of the appellant herein, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow directed for investigation of the
matter by CB-CID; that during the investigation, the names of the private
respondents herein – accused came into light; that CB-CID submitted
the chargesheet against the accused Swaminath Yadav and others co-
accused under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 218, 120B IPC; that the
3
learned trial Court framed the charge under Sections 302/149, 201,
120B IPC.
3.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that during the investigation
by Crime Branch, it was found that one Shri Jainath Yadav, the then
Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia, under the
orders of Station House Officer, investigated the incident of death of the
deceased Kripa Shankar Shukla and in his investigation report dated
23.12.1995 in order to save the accused deliberately on the basis of the
false facts noted the fact that the deceased under the influence of liquor
while going to his paramour’s house fell into the well and died by
drowning, whereas in the post mortem report no symptoms of death by
drowning were found. It was also found during the investigation that
even the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai, District Hospital, Ballia had in the post
mortem report of the deceased deliberately mentioned the wrong reason
for death (died by drowning), in order to save the accused.
3.2 The learned trial Court therefore passed an order to prosecute the
then Station House Officer, Sub-Inspector of Police Jainath Yadav and
the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai.
3.3 That during the trial, the prosecution examined 8 main witnesses;
statement of one Doctor Chandrabhal Tripathy was recorded as Court
witness; that number of documentary evidence were also brought on
4
record; that in the depositions, the witnesses – villagers who were
examined on behalf of the prosecution specifically stated that before
they gave the evidence/statements, they were threatened by the
accused; not only that but an FIR was also lodged against the accused
persons for giving threats for the offences under Sections 504 & 506
IPC; that all the witnesses – villagers who were examined specifically
stated with respect to threats administered by the accused and they
were told not to give any evidence against the accused; that during the
investigation the prosecution also established and proved the motive;
that on appreciation of evidence and having specifically found from the
post mortem report that the lungs of the deceased were found
congested, however, no water was found in the lungs; that the learned
trial Court specifically noted that despite the above, SI Jainath Yadav
neither considered the above points himself nor sought any opinion in
this regard from any doctor; that the learned trial Court also noticed that
before preparing the enquiry report, neither he enquired from the brother,
wife and son of the deceased nor recorded their statements; that
thereafter on appreciation of evidence, more particularly the evidence of
last seen with the deceased at about 8 O’clock in the night on
26.10.1995 along with the accused persons and thereafter Kripa
Shankar Shukla was not seen by anybody and ultimately the dead body
was found in the well at about 10:40 a.m. on 28.10.1995. That the
5
learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 08.02.2018 convicted the
private respondents herein – accused persons, namely, Vikrama Yadav,
Swaminath Yadav, Jhingur Bhar, Surendra Kumar Pandey and Umesh
Kumar Pandey for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B
IPC. That the learned trial Court also convicted the then Investigating
Officer Jainath Yadav and the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai who performed
the post mortem on the body of the deceased and stated the wrong
reason of death for the offences under Sections 201 r/w 120B and 218
IPC.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court imposing the
sentence of life imprisonment, convicted accused – Swaminath Yadav
has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018; convicted accused –
Surendra Kumar Pandey has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1405/2018;
convicted accused Jhingur Bhar has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
1496/2018; and convicted accused Vikrama Yadav has preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2018 before the High Court.
4.1 In the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018, accused
Swaminath Yadav preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
being Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 praying for releasing him on bail
during the pendency of the criminal appeal. That by the impugned
6
judgment and order dated 08.10.2018, the High Court has allowed the
said bail application and has directed to release the accused –
Swaminath Yadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
4.2 Order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the High Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.
1283/2018 in the case of accused – Swaminath Yadav has been
followed in other three appeals and other three accused, namely,
Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav are also
released on bail on parity and on the ground that co-accused Swaminath
Yadav has been released on bail by a coordinate Bench.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders
passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending
respective criminal appeals, the appellant – victim – wife of the
deceased has preferred the present criminal appeals.
5.1 At this stage it is required to be noted that by the time the High
Court released the accused on bail, they had undergone 8 months
sentence only.
6. Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the
appellant, S/Shri Sandeep Narain and Udayaditya Banerjee, learned
7
Advocates have appeared on behalf of the accused in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 876 and 877 of 2021 and Ms. Srishti Singh, learned Advocate has
appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6.1 Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the remaining
accused. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
respondents – accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 876 and 877 of 2021
have fairly assisted the Court with their submissions which will cover all
the cases.
6.2 Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the
respondents – accused on bail pending their respective appeals.
6.3 It is submitted that while releasing the accused on bail, the High
Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered the fact that by
a detailed judgment and order and after appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused for
the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC and sentenced
them to undergo life imprisonment.
6.4 It is submitted that once the accused are convicted for the very
serious offence under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court, there
shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter and therefore the
8
High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending
appeals who are convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201
r/w 120B IPC.
6.5 It is further submitted that as such no reasons whatsoever have
been assigned by the High Court while releasing the accused on bail
pending appeals. It is submitted that the High Court has failed to note
the circumstances under which right from the very beginning the efforts
were made to derail the investigation and even the trial Court also
convicted the then Investigating Officer and even the doctor who
performed the post mortem for the offences under Sections 201 r/w
120B and 218 IPC.
6.6 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all properly
appreciated and/or noted and/or considered the fact that the prosecution
witnesses – villagers who deposed against the accused were given
threats repeatedly by the accused who were on bail and threatened
them that if they give evidence against the accused, they will have to
suffer dire consequences.
6.7 It is submitted that the High Court has also failed to note that even
two FIRs were filed during the trial for the offences under Sections 504
and 506 IPC against the accused for giving threats to the complainant
side and others.
9
6.8 It is submitted that in the impugned judgments and orders, the
High Court has not at all even referred to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State opposing bail pending appeals.
6.9 It is submitted that therefore the High Court while releasing the
private respondents herein – accused on bail pending criminal appeals
against the judgment and order of conviction has not at all considered
the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation against
the accused and their antecedents and conduct of giving threats to the
witnesses during trial and even thereafter.
6.10 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeals and quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the
High Court releasing the accused on bail, pending criminal appeals.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has fully
supported the appellant. It is submitted that the High Court has failed to
notice and/or consider the motive, antecedents and conduct of the
accused even during trial and the manner in which all efforts were made
right from the very beginning to scuttle the fair investigation.
7.1 It is submitted that as such no specific reasons have been
assigned by the High Court while releasing the accused on bail pending
appeals. It is submitted that the manner in which the High Court has
disposed of the bail applications and released the accused on bail
10
pending appeals is not sustainable at all. It is submitted that from the
impugned orders passed by the High Court, it is difficult to identify the
submissions on behalf of the accused and even the findings recorded
while releasing the accused on bail. It is submitted that even the
submissions on behalf of the State have not been summarised and/or
discussed at all.
7.2 It is submitted that criminal history of two cases against the
accused for the offences under Sections 143, 504 & 506 being CR No.
158/1996 and CR No. 23/1999 under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are taken
very lightly by the High Court. It is submitted that the High Court ought
to have appreciated that the aforesaid cases were for giving threats by
the accused to the witnesses and the family members of the deceased
including the appellant herein.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents –
accused have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, no error has been committed by the High Court releasing
the accused on bail, pending appeals.
8.1 It is submitted that admittedly it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and not a single witness had stated that he saw any of the
accused murdering Kripa Sankar Shukla or even throwing his dead body
in the well. It is submitted that even in the post mortem report, the cause
11
of death was shown ‘died by drowning’. It is submitted that there is no
other further medical evidence showing the different cause of death.
8.2 It is further submitted that during the trial the accused were on bail
and even thereafter also by the impugned orders the accused are on bail
and nothing is on record that thereafter they have misused the liberty
granted by the Court by releasing them on bail. It is submitted that
therefore no case is made out to cancel the bail granted by the High
Court.
8.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length. We have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail
pending appeal against the judgment and order of conviction for the
offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201 and 120B IPC.
9.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal, we are at
pains to note that the order granting bail to the accused pending appeal
lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and order can be said to
be submissions and which part can be said to be the
findings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions on behalf
12
of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal. A detailed
counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State opposing the bail
pending appeal which has not been even referred to by the High Court.
The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the application
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and has disposed of the application for bail
pending appeal cannot be approved. It is very unfortunate that by this
judgment, we are required to observe the importance of judgment;
purpose of judgment and what should be contained in the judgment.
9.2 First of all, let us consider what is “judgment”. “Judgment” means
a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the case is
about; how the court is resolving the case and why. “Judgment” is
defined as any decision given by a court on a question or questions or
issue between the parties to a proceeding properly before court. It is
also defined as the decision or the sentence of a court in a legal
proceeding along with the reasoning of a judge which leads him to his
decision. The term “judgment” is loosely used as judicial opinion or
decision. Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court of Queensland, in her
speech once stated that there are four purposes for any judgment that is
written:
i) to spell out judges own thoughts;
ii) to explain your decision to the parties;
13
iii) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public;
and
iv) to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider
9.3 It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be
reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. The judicial opinion is to
be written in such a way that it elucidates in a convincing manner and
proves the fact that the verdict is righteous and judicious. What the court
says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court decides.
Every judgment contains four basic elements and they are (i)
statement of material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii)
deliberation to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusive decision.
A judgment should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. It
should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the
basis of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the important
elements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of reading a
judgment. In the Path of Law, Holmes J. has stressed the insentient
factors that persuade a judge. A judgment has to formulate findings of
fact, it has to decide what the relevant principles of law are, and it has to
apply those legal principles to the facts. The important elements of a
judgment are:
i) Caption
14
ii) Case number and citation
iii) Facts
iv) Issues
v) Summary of arguments by both the parties
vi) Application of law
vii) Final conclusive verdict
9.4 The judgment replicates the individuality of the judge and therefore
it is indispensable that it should be written with care and caution. The
reasoning in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. Clarity and
precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be supported by
reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions should be precise
and specific. Writing judgments is an art, though it involves skilful
application of law and logic. We are conscious of the fact that the judges
may be overburdened with the pending cases and the arrears, but at the
same time, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity. Unless judgment
is not in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There
are some judgments that eventually get overruled because of lack of
clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should have clarity
on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival parties; discussion
on law points and thereafter reasoning and thereafter the ultimate
conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portion of the
order. There must be a clarity on the final relief granted. A party to the
15
litigation must know what actually he has got by way of final relief. The
aforesaid aspects are to be borne in mind while writing the judgment,
which would reduce the burden of the appellate court too. We have
come across many judgments which lack clarity on facts, reasoning and
the findings and many a times it is very difficult to appreciate what the
learned judge wants to convey through the judgment and because of
that, matters are required to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment should have a clarity, both on
facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasonings and the ultimate
relief granted.
10. If we consider the impugned order passed by the High Court, as
observed hereinabove, we find that there is a total lack of clarity on the
submissions, which part of the order is submission, which part of the
order is the finding and/or reasoning. As observed hereinabove, even
the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor have not been noted
and referred to, though a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the State
opposing the bail applications. We do not approve the manner in which
the High Court has disposed of the application for bail pending appeal.
11. Even on merits also, the impugned order passed by the High Court
releasing the accused on bail pending appeal is unsustainable. The
High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that the
learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has convicted the
16
accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court, there
shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the
High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending
appeal who are convicted for the serious offences punishable under
Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
11.1 Even the High Court has also failed to note the
circumstances under which right from the very beginning the efforts were
made to delay/derail the investigation. It is to be noted that even the
learned trial Court also convicted the investigating officer and even the
doctor who performed the post mortem for the offences under Sections
201 r/w 120B and 218 IPC.
11.2. The High Court has also not appreciated the conduct on the part of
the accused pending investigation and even during trial. The trial Court
has specifically observed while appreciating the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedly to the
prosecution witnesses and villagers and threatened them that if they give
evidence against the accused, they would suffer the dire consequences.
The High Court has also not very seriously considered the two FIRs filed
during trial for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC against the
accused for giving threats to the complainant side and others. The High
17
Court has very casually observed that two cases for the offences under
Sections 504 & 506 IPC are of a simple nature and that “these two
cases will not constitute the criminal history of the accused”. Giving
threats to the complainant side and the other witnesses and the offences
under Sections 504 & 506 IPC can be said to be a very serious offence.
Therefore, the aforesaid conduct ought not to have been taken by the
High Court very lightly.
11.3. Even, the High Court has also not considered the seriousness of
the offence and the gravity of the accusation against the accused and
their antecedents and conduct by giving threats to the witnesses during
trial and even thereafter. The High Court ought to have noted that when
the High Court released the accused on bail pending appeal, they have
undergone only 8 months sentence against the life sentence imposed by
the learned trial Court.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore even
on merits also, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing
the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment and order of
conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and orders(s) dated
18
08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018, Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.
1405/2018, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1496/2018 and Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1398/2018
respectively releasing the private respondents herein – accused on bail
pending appeal, namely, Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey,
Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav against the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting them for the
offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC are hereby quashed
and set aside. The private respondents herein – accused, namely,
Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama
Yadav are hereby directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, failing which the learned
trial Court is directed to issue warrants of arrest against them and take
them into custody forthwith. A copy of this order be also forwarded to the
concerned trial Court for compliance.
14. The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. It goes
without saying that the High Court shall decide the pending appeals on
19
their own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made in this judgment.
….…………………………………J. [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]
New Delhi; ……………………………………..J.
September 07, 2021. [M.R. Shah]
20
Comments