Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and his liberty can be curtailed by putting him under imprisonment by due process of law only. If the entire case of the prosecution has been found to be unreliable and the prosecution, as a whole, has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, then the benefit should accrue to all the accused persons and not merely to the accused who have preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction.
The Court said in Sahadevan v. State of Tamilnadu (2012), that in normal circumstances, the obvious result would be to leave the non-appealing accused to undergo the punishment awarded to him in accordance with law. But, where the Court finds that the entire case of the prosecution suffers from material contradictions, the most crucial evidence is not reliable, there are definite and material flaws in the case of the prosecution and the Police has failed to discharge its duties at different steps, in that event, it will be difficult for Supreme Court to leave the non-appealing accused to his fate.
In the case of Raja Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1994) 2 SCC 568], Supreme Court extended the benefit of conversion of sentence to all the accused, from that under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 IPC, including the non-appealing accused. The Court held that in its opinion, the case of the non-appealing accused was not really distinguishable from other accused persons and it was appropriate that benefit of the judgment should also be extended to the non-appealing accused, Ram Sahai, in that case.
Again, in the case of Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [(2002) 9 SCC 147], Supreme Court clearly stated the principle that it has set up a judicial precedent that where on evaluation of the case, the Court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to the co-accused, similarly situated, though he has not challenged the order by way of an appeal.
In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2003) 11 SCC 241], while referring to the myth of the salutary powers exercisable by the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice to the parties, the Court opined that powers under Article 136 of the Constitution can be exercised by it even suo motu and that the right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, would be a factor which can be considered by the Court in granting such reliefs.
The Court held as under : “17. Apart from the salutary powers exercisable by Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice to the parties, the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution can be exercised by it in favour of a party even suo motu when the Court is satisfied that compelling grounds for its exercise exist but it should be used very sparingly with caution and circumspection inasmuch as only the rarest of rare cases. One of such grounds may be, as it exists like in the present case, where Supreme Court while considering appeal of one of the accused comes to the conclusion that conviction of appealing as well as non-appealing accused both was unwarranted.
Upon the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Apex Court of the land, further detention of the non-appealing accused, by virtue of the judgment rendered by the High Court upholding his conviction, being without any authority of law, infringes upon the right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizen as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In our view, in cases akin to the present one, where there is either a flagrant violation of mandatory provision of any statute or any provision of the Constitution, it is not that Supreme Court has a discretion to exercise its suo motu power but a duty is enjoined upon it to exercise the same by setting right the illegality in the judgment of the High Court as it is well settled that illegality should not be allowed to be perpetuated and failure by Supreme Court to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that accused Balwinder Singh alias Binder is also entitled to be extended the same benefit which we are granting in favour of the appellant.”
Similar view has also been expressed by Supreme Court in the cases of Madhu v. State of Kerala [(2012) 2 SCC 399] and Gurucharan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 698].
The Court in Sahadevan v. State of Tamilnadu (2012) made important observations on this aspect, the court staetd that it is very difficult to set any universal principle which could be applied to all cases irrespective of the facts, circumstances and the findings returned by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Where the Court finds that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious contradictions, is unreliable, is ex facie neither cogent nor true and the prosecution has failed to discharge the established onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to return the finding of acquittal and even suo moto extend the benefit to a non-appealing accused as well, more so, where the Court even disbelieves the very occurrence of the crime itself.
Of course, the role attributed to each of the accused and other attendant circumstances would be relevant considerations for the Court to apply its discretion judiciously. There can be varied reasons for a non-appealing accused in not approaching the appellate Court. If, for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused. The concept of fair trial would take within its ambit the right to be heard by the appellate Court. It is hardly possible to believe that an accused would, out of choice, give up his right to appeal, especially in a crime where a sentence of imprisonment for life is prescribed and awarded.
Fairness in the administration of justice system and access to justice would be the relevant considerations for Supreme Court to examine whether a non-appealing accused could or could not be extended the benefit of the judgment of acquittal. The access to justice is an essential feature of administration of justice. This is applicable with enhanced rigour to the criminal jurisprudence. Where the court disbelieves the entire incident of the occurrence or where the role of the accused who has not appealed is identical to that of the other appealing accused or where the ends of justice demand, the Court would not hesitate and, in fact, is duty bound, to dispense justice in accordance with law.
The powers of Supreme Court, in terms of Articles 136 and 142 on the one hand and the rights of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution on the other, are wide enough to deliver complete justice to the parties. These powers are incapable of being curtailed by such technical aspects which would not help in attainment of justice in the opinion of the Court.