Previous 36 / 36 Next

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No(s). 64-65/2022 Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti.….Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh.….Respondent(s) (IA No. 109475/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 13-10-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. 133. Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala, pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and His Lordship. 134. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. 135. The conviction of the accused appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offences. 136. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ——— Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Age at Offence: 30

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Minorities: Caste
Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2016

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment
Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to adequate legal representation at all stages
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to fair hearing by impartial, independent tribunal

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Medical examination (victim/accused, age determination etc)

Case Background (300 words max): The accused allegedly murdered his wife and four daughters.

The key circumstances against the accused are: motive (extra-marital affair); oral testimony (of accused’s conduct post incident); post-mortem report (injuries consistent with weapon used, cause of death likely shock and haemorrhage); recovery evidence (murder weapon and bloodied clothes); and extra judicial confession (made to son).

The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death on 04.11.2016. The High Court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence awarded on 09.07.2021. The Supreme Court however acquitted the accused on 13.10.2022.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): "1) Recovery evidence (murder weapon and bloodied clothes) should not be relied upon as it does not imply authorship of concealment. 2) Extra-judicial testimony is fabricated with “got-up” witnesses, and hence unreliable 3) The prosecution has been unable to prove the existence of an extra-marital affair between the accused and another, which is claimed to be the motive behind the crime. Hence, the same cannot be relied upon for conviction. 4) The prosecution has been unable to explain injuries sustained by the appellant. However those injuries are explained by the appellant’s version of events. "

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): 1)The Supreme Court agreed with the defence in that mere recovery of evidence owing to information supplied by the accused does not incriminate the accused and hence a conviction cannot rely on it. Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered it. 2)The Court found the extra-judicial confession to be untrustworthy as it was materially contradicted by the oral testimony of 2 witnesses who claimed the accused was elsewhere at the time the prosecution alleges the accused confessed. It was emphasised that extra judicial confessions ought to be corroborated before reliance is placed on it. 3) The Court refrained from stating whether the prosecution established motive beyond reasonable doubt, but did state that even if it is assumed that the accused had motive to commit the crime alleged, it shall not be sufficient to convict considering the lack of other surrounding circumstances. 4) While the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused may point towards the innocence of the accused, the same cannot be relied upon entirely to absolve him.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Trial: State Legal Aid
Appeal: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 27 Indian Evidence Act

Judicial Precedents: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra Hanumant and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Ram Gopal vs. State of Maharashtra Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra Murli and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Mohmed Inayatullah vs. The State of Maharashtra Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka State of U.P. vs. Deoman Upadhyaya Pulukuri Kottaya and others vs. Emperor Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Bodhraj and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir State of Maharashtra vs. Damu and Ors. A.N. Venkatesh and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram Sahadevan and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan Thimma and Thimma Raju vs. State of Mysore Mulk Raj vs. The State of U.P. Sivakumar vs. State Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari vs. State of Maharashtra Mohd. Azad vs. State of West Bengal Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey and Ors. Piara Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri N.J. Suraj vs. State represented by Inspector of Police Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State thr. CBI Rukia Begum vs. State of Karnataka Sunil Rai and Ors. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra Dhananjay Shanker Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra Takhaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Ors. Kashi Ram and Ors. vs. State of M.P. Mohar Rai and Ors. vs. State of Bihar Lakshmi Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar Vijayee Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. Ranchod Mathur Wasawa vs. State of Gujarat Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh Charles R. Cooper v. F.W. Slade Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. R.V. Warwickshall

Language of Case Materials

English

Primary Documents

SC Judgement_Acquittal.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti

Primary Documents

Notifications