27 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. S.27 Evidence Act Can't Aid Prosecution If Recovery Isn't Proved To Be Based On Disclosure Of Accused : Supreme Court

• Case- Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam
• Date of Order- February 24, 2025
• Bench- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background of the Case:

• The appellant was accused of kidnapping and murdering a minor girl (the deceased).
• The FIR was filed by the deceased's father, stating that the appellant, with the help of his mother and brother-in-law, had kidnapped his daughter. They had promised to arrange a marriage, but the girl was missing for several days.

Prosecution's Circumstances:

• First Circumstance: The appellant and the deceased were last seen together.
• Second Circumstance: The appellant allegedly made an extrajudicial confession to certain prosecution witnesses.
• Third Circumstance: The deceased's body was found based on a confessional statement made by the appellant.

Trial Court's Conviction:

• The Trial Court convicted the appellant for murder, relying on the three circumstances mentioned above.

High Court's Decision:

• The High Court upheld the conviction but discarded the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant in the presence of police.
• The conviction was still based on the other two circumstances (last seen together and body recovery).

Supreme Court's Analysis:

• The Supreme Court discussed Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows information provided by the accused to be admissible if it leads to the discovery of a fact.
• The Court observed discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, especially regarding the recovery of the body. Some witnesses claimed to have seen the body at the police station rather than at the location it was allegedly discovered.
• The Court concluded that the recovery of the body could not be attributed to the appellant's statement, and thus Section 27 could not support the prosecution's case.

Circumstantial Evidence:

• The Court noted that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be proved. Since one of the three circumstances (extrajudicial confession) was discarded, the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.
• The Court further highlighted the time gap between the appellant and the deceased being last seen together and the recovery of the body, which made it uncertain that the appellant was responsible for the death.

Lacunae in the Prosecution’s Case:

• The mother and brother-in-law of the appellant, who had promised to arrange the marriage between the appellant and the deceased, were not produced as witnesses, even though they were material to the case. This was noted as a significant omission in the prosecution's evidence.
• The Court also pointed out that there was no clear motive for the appellant to kill the deceased, as they were in a romantic relationship, and there were no other compelling reasons for the murder.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
• It held that the conviction was unjustified, and the appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court's final ruling was that the appellant was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, particularly with respect to the circumstantial evidence and lack of motive.

2. No Concept of ‘Deemed Sanction’ Under Section 197 CrPC: Supreme Court

• Case- Suneeti Toteja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
• Date of Order- February 25, 2025
• Bench- Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Supreme Court Decision:

• The Supreme Court quashed a case against a public servant due to the lack of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• The Court rejected the concept of "deemed sanction", emphasizing that Section 197 CrPC does not envisage such a concept.

Arguments by the Complainant and Prosecution:

• The complainant and prosecution relied on two Supreme Court cases:

1. Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998), and
2. Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh (2012).

• They argued that if the sanctioning authority did not grant sanction within the stipulated time, it should be deemed to have been granted.

Court’s Response to the Arguments:

• The Court rejected the "deemed sanction" argument, clarifying that Vineet Narain’s case dealt with the powers of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Central Vigilance Commission, and did not address Section 197 of CrPC.
• In Subramanian Swamy’s case, the Court clarified that the concurrent judgment provided a guideline suggesting that after the expiration of the time limit for sanction, it should be treated as deemed granted, but this was not incorporated into the CrPC. Therefore, the Court cannot read such a provision into the statute as it does not exist.

Clarification on the Law:

• The Court highlighted that the CrPC does not provide for a "deemed sanction" concept. It emphasized that Parliament has not statutorily incorporated the idea of deemed sanction under the CrPC.
• The Court also referred to the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, the new procedural law, which provides for the concept of deemed sanction if the sanction is not granted within 120 days. The BNSS statute makes it clear that if the sanctioning authority fails to decide within 120 days, the sanction shall be considered granted.

Background of the Case:

• The case involved a public servant who was charged with an offense, but the sanction for prosecution was not granted within the prescribed time.
• The sanctioning authority had denied the sanction, but the denial came after the stipulated time for granting sanction had passed. The respondents argued that this delay should result in the sanction being deemed granted.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion:

• The Court concluded that the public servant cannot be prosecuted without a valid sanction as required under Section 197 CrPC.
• It held that the Magistrate had made an error in taking cognizance of the offense without the proper sanction for prosecution.
• The High Court also erred in not considering the absence of the valid sanction and denying the fact that the competent authority had expressly denied the sanction for prosecution.
• As a result, the chargesheet, the summoning order, and subsequent steps taken by the trial court were quashed.

In summary, the Supreme Court clarified that a deemed sanction does not exist under Section 197 CrPC, and the prosecution of a public servant cannot proceed without proper sanction from the competent authority.

3. Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord Should Get Another Property Vacated For Bonafide Need: Supreme Court

• Case- Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan & Ors.
• Date of Order- February 25, 2025
• Bench- Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotiswar Singh

Case Overview:

• The landlord (appellant) filed a suit for eviction of a tenant based on his bona fide need to establish an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons.
• The trial court dismissed the eviction suit, and the High Court upheld this decision.
• The landlord appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the landlord is the best judge of which part of his property should be vacated to meet his specific needs.
• It clarified that the tenant cannot oppose eviction merely on the grounds that the landlord owns other properties.
• The Court observed that the landlord's need must be a genuine need, not a mere desire to vacate the premises.

Arguments by the Tenant:

• The tenant argued that the landlord owned other properties and could have sought eviction from those properties instead of the one in dispute.
• The tenant claimed that the landlord should not be allowed to evict them from the suit property since there were other properties available.

Court’s Ruling:

• The Supreme Court rejected the tenant's argument, stating that once the landlord’s bona fide need for eviction was established, the tenant cannot dictate which property should be vacated based on convenience.
• The Court highlighted that the landlord is in the best position to determine which property best suits his needs.
• The Court noted that the suit property was adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathology center, making it the most suitable location for establishing the ultrasound machine business.

Establishment of Bona Fide Need:

• The Court found that the landlord had proved his bona fide need, noting that:
  1. The landlord’s two sons were unemployed.
  2. The landlord had the financial capacity to purchase and establish the ultrasound machine.
  3. The suit property was ideally located for the intended business, making it the best choice for fulfilling the landlord's needs.

Final Decision:

• The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal and ruled in favor of his eviction request, confirming that the landlord’s bona fide need had been properly established and that the eviction from the suit property was justified.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the landlord’s decision to evict the tenant from the suit property, emphasizing that the landlord's genuine needs take precedence, and the tenant cannot oppose the eviction based on the availability of other properties.