Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra appeared before the Supreme Court of India as counsel for the State of Karnataka in B.C. Deva @ Dyava v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 122. The matter arose from a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon B.C. Deva @ Dyava for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Representation Before the Supreme Court
The judgment records Mr. Anil Mishra, Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla and Mr. Ramesh Jhadav (for Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde) as advocates appearing for the respondent. The respondent in the appeal was the State of Karnataka. Mr. Mishra therefore appeared as part of the legal team representing the State before the Supreme Court.
Submissions on Behalf of the State
Unlike cases where the judgment merely records an advocate’s appearance, the judgment in this matter specifically records a submission made by Mr. Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
The appellant had challenged the conviction by questioning, among other things, the absence of independent eyewitnesses, the absence of physical injuries on the prosecutrix, and the reliance placed by the courts below upon her testimony.
On behalf of the State, Mr. Anil Mishra submitted that the prosecution had clearly established the guilt of the accused. He supported the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court and submitted that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded in the well-reasoned judgment. He further submitted that the evidence had been analysed in detail by the High Court and, consequently, there was no ground for interference with the conviction recorded by the High Court.
Role in the Proceedings
Mr. Mishra’s recorded participation was therefore directly connected with defending the State’s case against the challenge to the conviction. His submission supported the prosecution case and the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.
The Supreme Court independently examined the oral and documentary evidence. It found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be reliable and trustworthy and noted the corroborating circumstances, including her immediate disclosure of the incident, her conduct following the incident, and the evidence of other witnesses. The Court also held that the absence of physical injuries or corroborative medical evidence did not, in the circumstances of the case, justify rejecting reliable testimony.
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s role in the matter is thus specifically reflected in the judgment both through his appearance as counsel for the State of Karnataka and through the submissions recorded on behalf of the State in support of the prosecution case and the concurrent conviction.