(Now read above line again. On one hand it says that it is easy and in the same sentence it says that it is complicated subject)
What needs to be proved in case of a “Murder simpliciter when conviction is only under Sec. 302” ?
If murder has taken place,Sec 302 is applied. But if it is a planned murder, planned jointly with few other persons, other Sections like 34, 120B, 149 etc are also attracted.
Difference in facts surrounding murder, decides which sections are attracted and what evidence are needed and what is ‘commonly followed law’ in such cases.
Several persons killed a man. There were several injuries on body. Since there were no other evidences about pre-planning or such other facts to attract sections other than 302.
Trial Court convicted everyone whom police had made accused.
High Court re-looked at evidence and felt that after dead body was found, evidences appear to have been manipulated and it found that there is no evidence against any one except one person.
So it convicted one person and acqitted others.
The One person who was convicted came to Supreme Court.
The Court noticed that conviction was only under 302. No other sections were applied. Others are also acquitted.
So this was only a conviction for 302 only.
Then comes law. When Conviction is only under 302, it has to be proved that (1) Accsed is the author of injury inflicted (2) That the said injury was such that it could have caused death.
Here, the deadbody had several injury. It was not proved what was the injury of which accused, this person in appeal was the author.
Therefore, the accused was entitled to acquittal.
And he was acquitted.
WHY JUSTICE DIFFERS FROM JUDGE TO JUDGE
Some Judges go by purly legal considerations. To them criminla law is simple.
Conviction, if there is required evidence.
Acquittal, if required evidence is not there.
Some Judges are moralistic.
They may say, “Look, a person’s life is lost. All others are acquitted. Let at least this man remain in jail”
They may dismiss SLP in Supreme Court at admission stage itself.
I would call them Moralist Judges.
Outcome of cases before them is unpredictable.
Unpredictability leads to high fees of senior advocates and possible favouritism.
And corruption of some kind or other follows when criminal law is applied with unpredictability, uncertainity and moralistc views.
Case above, is reconstructed imaginarily by me from 2011 (1)Scale 649 page 651 para 8.
Views about judges are my personal and may be incorrect. One’s views about judges depends on one’s own exposure to judges.