In this edition of the Court judgments review, we look at SC’s decision that Aadhaar is not definitive proof of age or date of birth, SC’s observation that imposing an impossible condition for suspending a sentence could undermine the right to appeal, and that close relative’s oral dying declaration should be treated with care and caution, among others.
SC: Aadhaar is not definitive proof of age or date of birth
In the case, Saroj & others vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company & others, the matter before the Supreme Court involves an appeal by the family of the deceased, Silak Ram, challenging a decision by the High Court that reduced the compensation awarded to them following a motorcycle accident that resulted in his death. The incident took place in 2015. Later that year, the deceased’s family filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In 2017, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,35,400 to the family with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition.
However, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 9,22,336, citing uniform wage rates and adjusting the multiplier based on the deceased’s age as per his Aadhaar Card. The appellants (the kin of the deceased) appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision to reduce the compensation amount. The High Court calculated his age as 47 years at the time of death as per the Aadhaar Card and applied the multiplier of 13 for calculating the compensation. However, the appellants argued that the multiplier should be 14 as his age was 45 years at the time of death as per his School Leaving Certificate.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan referred to past rulings of the Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, Gujarat and Bombay High Courts which held that the Aadhaar was not a definitive or conclusive proof of age or date of birth. The Bench also referred to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)’s guidelines which clarified that while the Aadhaar Card can be used to establish an individual’s identity, it does not serve as definitive proof of date of birth. The Bench allowed the appeal and held that there was no error in the Tribunal’s determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate. The total compensation was recalculated to Rs. 15,00,000 with an interest rate of 8% from the date of the claim petition.
SC: Imposing an impossible condition for suspending a sentence could undermine the right to appeal
The case, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Sirpal, involves an appeal against the conviction of the respondent, the second accused, who was found guilty by the Special Judge, CBI at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 95,00,000. He had appealed to the Delhi High Court, which suspended his sentence, allowing him to remain free on bail while the appeal was pending, provided he submitted a personal bond. This order was challenged by CBI before the Supreme Court.
CBI contended that the failure to suspend the fine meant that Sirpal had to comply with the payment to avoid imprisonment. However, Sirpal had only deposited Rs.15 lakhs of the total fine, raising concerns about his potential imprisonment due to non-payment. Conversely, Sirpal’s counsel argued that the High Court’s suspension effectively covered both the sentence and the fine, asserting the court’s right to impose such conditions while considering the lengthy wait for appeals to be heard.
Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that imposing an impossible condition for suspending a sentence could undermine the right to appeal. The Supreme Court Bench stated that when suspending a sentence, especially regarding fines, the appellate court can set conditions tailored to the specifics of the case and the type of offence. For example, in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court might require the accused to deposit the fine. However, for offences under the IPC, the approach may differ. The Court stressed that if a condition is impossible for the appellant to meet, it could undermine their right to appeal and violate Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case, given the total sentence was over eight years and considering the backlog of criminal appeals, the Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the sentence, particularly since Sirpal had complied by depositing Rs. 15 lakhs.
SC: Close relative’s oral dying declaration should be treated with care and caution
The case, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan, arose when the trial court convicted an accused based on the testimony of the deceased’s mother, who claimed her son made an oral dying declaration identifying the attackers. However, the High Court overturned this conviction, highlighting discrepancies in the mother’s statements. Notably, she had failed to mention this crucial dying declaration in her initial police statement, raising doubts about her credibility and the reliability of her testimony.
Before the Supreme Court, the prosecution relied heavily on the mother’s testimony to establish the oral dying declaration. However, the Bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, emphasized the need for caution when evaluating such declarations, particularly those made to close relatives. It noted that dying declarations, while significant, are not inherently strong evidence. The Court underscored that the absence of any corroborating evidence or details in the initial FIR further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Bench observed that there were significant inconsistencies in the mother’s statements, and warranted giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, leading to the dismissal of the State’s appeal against the acquittal. The Bench upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, finding the evidence provided by the deceased’s mother unreliable.
Allahabad HC: Bail plea of an unconvicted person should not be rejected for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson
The case, Maya Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a bail petition. Maya Tiwari was booked under Sections 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D IT Act on the allegations of defrauding people by issuing fake tenders for the ‘One Nation, One Ration Card’ scheme. Allegedly, the petitioner and her family received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 through fraudulent means. She moved to the Allahabad High Court seeking bail on grounds that she had sent most of the money back to the first informant.
In the arguments presented, the applicant’s counsel emphasized the principle that bail should not be withheld as punishment and cited previous Supreme Court rulings affirming the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The defence contended that since the co-accused had been granted bail and so she was also eligible for relief.
The single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that when evaluating a bail application, it’s crucial to consider not just the seriousness of the charges but also the likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with witnesses, or intimidating victims. The court stated that bail should not be denied merely as a punitive measure or to teach the accused a lesson.
In this case, the Bench noted that the petitioner posed no risk of absconding or interfering with witnesses. It pointed out that the co-accused had already been granted bail and denying her bail would be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, her bail was granted subject to certain conditions.
Rajasthan HC: Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity as a human being, which also includes acting as a good husband as per Hindu rituals.
In the case, Amar Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, the petitioner sought interim bail for three months due to his wife’s urgent medical needs. He had been incarcerated since November 2022, facing multiple FIRs related to alleged fraud involving the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society. His wife, Gor Kanwar, required immediate surgery for severe spinal issues, and he was the only family member available to provide necessary care before and after the procedure.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga of the Rajasthan High Court recognized the seriousness of the wife’s medical condition, confirmed by medical reports indicating that delaying the surgery could pose a significant risk to her health. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had previously been granted bail in some FIRs without misusing it, highlighting the urgency of the situation as a reason to expedite the bail process.
The court granted the petitioner temporary bail for 60 days, emphasizing the fundamental right to live with dignity as per Article 21 of the Constitution. It also stated that Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity as a human being, which also entails acting as a good husband in accordance with the marital vows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals. The ruling specified that the bail would apply to all FIRs mentioned in the petition and waived the requirement for an insolvency certificate in the bail bond process, allowing the petitioner to assist his wife during her critical medical procedure.