Case Title: Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.
Summary
The Supreme Court has invalidated an order issued by the Bombay High Court that released two individuals accused of murder. The High Court had failed to consider the entire body of evidence submitted with the charge sheet, as the statements of certain individuals were selectively referenced. The case involved the murder of Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi, who was discovered in his chamber in a pool of blood. The investigation was conducted, and testimonies regarding the number of individuals were recorded in accordance with Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. A psychological evaluation was conducted on respondent no. 1 (Respondent No. 1), which included psychological profiling, polygraph testing, and brain electrical oscillation signature profiling (BEOS). A charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons on December 9, 2009, following the conclusion of the investigation.
The Bombay High Court reversed the order issued by the Trial Court and released respondent no. 1 and 2. The appellant filed a challenge to the impugned order of the High Court with the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had conducted a mini trial by referencing certain statements recorded by the police during the investigation, which were beyond the Court’s jurisdiction at the time of the discharge application. The Court observed that the material produced can only be evaluated for truthfulness, sufficiency, and acceptability during the trial stage, and that the trial’s continuation would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.
About the case
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court invalidated an order issued by the Bombay High Court that had released two individuals accused of murder. The High Court had failed to consider the entire body of evidence that the Investigating Agency had submitted with the charge sheet.
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, who comprised the division bench, observed:
“Upon examination of the facts of the case in the context of the law established by this Court on the matter, it is evident that the High Court has not even considered the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and presented with the chargesheet in its entirety. Rather, the statements of certain individuals who were recorded during the investigation are selectively referenced. It indicates that the intellect was completely disengaged. The High Court had abused its jurisdiction by attempting to sabotage the trial of a grievous crime.
The murder of Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi, who was discovered in his chamber in a pool of blood, was the subject of an FIR lodged at the Lonavala City Police Station on May 14, 2006.
Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, an investigation was conducted, and testimonies regarding the number of individuals were recorded in accordance with Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. On May 31, 2007, a psychological evaluation was conducted on accused no. 1 (Respondent No. 1), which included psychological profiling, polygraph testing, and brain electrical oscillation signature profiling (BEOS). Simultaneous tests were administered to the other four individuals who were purported to be close associates of respondent no. 1.
A charge-sheet was filed against the respondent no. 1 and 2 (accused persons) on December 9, 2009, following the conclusion of the investigation. The charge-sheet stated that while respondent no. 1 was in Dubai for business, his wife, respondent no. 2, developed a friendship with the deceased.
The charge-sheet also indicated that the companionship had evolved into a physical relationship. Respondent no. 1 was informed of this upon his return from Dubai. It was asserted that the respondent no. 1 conspired to murder the deceased through unknown assailants in order to exact revenge, in collaboration with respondent no. 2 and an additional individual.
The Magistrate transferred the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision application for discharge filed by the accused persons (respondents no. 1 and 2), as evidenced by the order dated February 21, 2012.
However, the Bombay High Court, in the impugned decision dated July 17, 2013, reversed the order issued by the Trial Court and released respondent no. 1 and 2.
The appellant filed a challenge to the impugned order of the High Court with the Supreme Court.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court had conducted a mini trial by referencing certain statements recorded by the police during the investigation, which were included in the chargesheet. These statements were beyond the Court’s jurisdiction at the time of the discharge application.
It was also contended that the High Court had neglected to take into account the fact that respondent no. 1 and four other aides of his underwent psychological evaluations, including psychological profiling, polygraph testing, and BEOS. These evaluations were instrumental in the accusation of respondent no. 1 and 2 in the crime.
Conversely, the counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 argued that the case was a blind homicide and that there was no eyewitness. It was also argued that the prosecution had concocted a fraudulent narrative for which there is no evidence to substantiate, and that the Trial Court had neglected to exercise the jurisdiction it possessed to free respondent no. 1 and 2.
The Court observed that it is a well-established legal principle that the prosecution’s entire evidence is to be believed during the charges’ hearing. If no offense is established, the accused may be discharged.
The Court made the following observation:
“The material produced can only be evaluated for truthfulness, sufficiency, and acceptability during the trial stage.” the Court must be satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against the accused individuals at the charge stage. At that juncture, the Court’s intervention is only necessary if there are compelling reasons to believe that the trial’s continuation would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.
The Apex Court cited its previous decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191 and State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 in addressing the aforementioned matter.
The Court observed that the High Court in the impugned order referred to some of the material collected by the Investigating Agency that was lodged alongside the charge-sheet in a “sketchy manner.”
The Apex Court also observed that the High Court has only taken into account a portion of the statements made by multiple individuals that were recorded by the investigation agency.
“…the Investigating Agency had recorded the statements of Hiraman Dyaneshwar Chaudhari, Ramesh Murlidhar, Mohan Vs., Ashok Gunaji Thosar, Mehboob Dastagi Sheikh, and Rakma Shivram Waghmare. However, the High Court did not refer to or consider these statements when it discharged Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.” It is imperative to acknowledge that this was an instance of blind homicide. The Court stated that the accused could only have been apprehended through the material compiled by the Investigating Agency, because of the circumstances.
The Court also observed that the Directorate of Forensic Sciences Laboratory’s opinion demonstrated respondent no.1’s involvement in the deceased’s homicide. The Court also noted that respondent no. 1’s psychological profile indicated that he was an antisocial individual who tended to violate social norms.
Consequently, the Court invalidated the High Court’s order that was being challenged.
