Special Leave Petition In The Case Of Mr. Jha

Background

An 11-year-old minor was reported missing by the father at Bhawanipore Police Station. The complaint stated that the child had left for school at 12 noon but did not return home. Later that night, a neighbor received a ransom call demanding the minor’s sister to be put on the phone. This complaint was treated as an FIR.

Upon completing the investigation under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), charges were framed against Mr Jha and other accused individuals. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the cross-examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the accused claimed innocence. After the trial, one of the accused was acquitted, but Mr. Jha and others were convicted. Each convicted individual, including Mr. Jha, filed separate appeals against the judgment in the Hon’ble High Court.

The High Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for recording further statements and to make fresh decisions based on the evidence on record. Subsequently, the trial court again convicted Mr. Jha along with the other accused.

Criticizing the previous judgment, Mr. Jha, along with the others, appealed in the High Court for justice. The High Court, once again, directed the trial judge to conduct further examination of the appellants and submit the findings. The High Court then affirmed the order of conviction against Mr. Jha and the other accused.

Issue

A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court, questioning if the High Court was legally justified in affirming the trial court’s conviction of Mr. Jha and others, especially since the allegedly abducted victim did not identify Mr Jha and others as the offenders. There was neither recovery of the ransom amount nor any proof regarding the ransom calls made by them. Hence, Mr Jha claimed a miscarriage of justice by the High Court and questioned the adherence to the rule of natural justice.

Solution

Kshetry and Associates undertook immense and relentless efforts to secure the justice that Mr. Jha deserved. Despite appearing twice in the Hon’ble High Court and failing to overturn the false allegations and subsequent conviction, it was clear that the rule of natural justice had been compromised. Kshetry and Associates moved to the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition, highlighting the inadequacies and lack of thorough consideration in the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court. The firm proved the procedural lapses and lack of evidence, arguing effectively for the recognition of the miscarriage of justice faced by Mr. Jha.

Outcome

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the Special Leave Petition, took note of the discrepancies and the failure of the previous courts to deliver a fair judgment based on the evidence presented. The petition emphasized the lack of identification of the accused by the victim, the absence of ransom amount recovery, and the failure to prove the ransom calls made by the accused. This case underscored the importance of adhering to natural justice and ensuring that convictions are based on substantial and unequivocal evidence.

Also Read: The Ganga Action Plan Case

To Top

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, you acknowledge the following:

If you have any legal issues, you, in all cases, must seek independent legal advice.

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this website you agree to our use of cookies.