Supreme Court acquits murder convicts due to lack of credible evidence; Sets aside High Court’s conviction order in 36-year-old case

Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 10-03-2003 passed by the Trial Court convicting the convicts under Sections 302 read with 148 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), with the modification that the conviction was under Sections 302 read 149 IPC, the division bench of Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, stating that there is a complete lack of credible evidence to connect the convicts to the deceased’s homicidal death.

Background

The deceased and the convicts shared a strained relationship. One day, while returning home, the convicts suddenly attacked the deceased and the informant with knives etc. The first knife injury was inflicted on the stomach of the deceased thereafter he fell from the motorcycle; the second injury was inflicted on his chest by a knife and on his back by a sword. The informant somehow managed to escape and went to the police station to lodge the first information report. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries whereafter Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the 8 accused persons under Sections 147 read with Sections 148, 149, 302 of the IPC. However, four of them died before the conclusion of the trial.

On conclusion of the trial, Trial Court acquitted one accused of all the charges and the present 3 convicts were convicted for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 148 IPC and sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the 3 convicts preferred appeal before the High Court, wherein the Court affirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Court with the modification that the conviction was under Sections 302 read 149 IPC. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the convicts was maintained. Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the convicts.

Analysis and Decision

While analysing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Court noted that the conduct of the informant appeared highly unusual. Despite the police station being only 200 meters away from the scene of the crime, instead of rushing to the station to seek help for himself and report the assault on the deceased, the informant chose to hide in the lane of Gauri Hotel. He did not raise any alarm either. Furthermore, he contradicted his own statement by initially claiming that the deceased was injured by knife blows before falling from the motorcycle, only to later state that the deceased was stabbed after falling. Additionally, the informant testified that there were approximately 100 people present in and around the crime scene, yet none of them came to the deceased’s aid, which the Court found to be highly unusual.

The informant was also found to be entangled in several criminal cases, and it was brought to the Court’s attention that he had a history of being a stock witness for the police, often deposing in favor of the police in other cases, including one where a present convict was an accused. The Court emphasized that the evidence of such a witness, without further corroboration, cannot be relied upon as the sole basis for convicting an accused.

The Court noted that the evidence of the deceased’s brother-in-law was riddled with inconsistencies. Firstly, he made no attempt to raise an alarm or to rescue his brother-in-law while the assault was ongoing. Secondly, even after the assailants had left the scene, he did not proceed to the police station or take his injured brother-in-law to the hospital. Instead, he went home, stating that he wanted to inform the other family members.

The Court emphasized that the investigation was marred by glaring inadequacies that undermined the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Specifically, the motorcycle that the deceased was riding when he was assaulted was not seized. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination testified that the deceased died due to profuse bleeding. If this was the case, there should have been blood stains on the motorcycle. Additionally, the investigating officer should have collected samples of blood-soaked soil from the scene and sent them for forensic examination. This could have confirmed whether the blood matched that of the deceased, but unfortunately, this crucial step was not taken.

The Court further noted that the manner in which the recoveries were made, as well as the circumstances surrounding them, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the recoveries. Additionally, the alleged recoveries were made several days after the incident, and no bloodstains or other forensic evidence were found on the weapons. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination testified that the seized weapons were not shown to him for examination. In fact, the knives and other weapons were not produced in court. Furthermore, all the seizure witnesses turned hostile, which weakened the prosecution’s case. As a result, Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot assist the prosecution.

Moreover, the Court noted that the clothes of the convicts were neither seized nor sent for forensic examination to determine the presence of bloodstains, which could have established whether the clothes bore bloodstains, whether those bloodstains were of human origin, and whether they matched the blood of the deceased.

The Court observed that according to the witnesses, there were approximately 100 to 150 people present at the crime scene. However, when the investigating officer visited the site immediately after lodging the FIR, he found no one there. Additionally, it is highly unnatural that the policemen at the station did not hear any noise from such a gruesome assault, which occurred only about 300 to 400 steps away. Certainly, the deceased would have screamed during such a brutal attack. In fact, it was noted that the convicts had yelled at the crowd, warning them not to intervene. Therefore, the Court said that it seems inconceivable that the policemen at the station, located so close by, would not have heard the commotion.

The Court further said that if there were indeed 100 to 150 people present, they would not have remained silent spectators to such a violent assault. However, this narrative of a crowd at the crime scene was proven false through the testimony of the investigating officer, who stated that when they arrived at the crime scene shortly after the incident, following the lodging of the FIR, they found no one there and were met with complete silence.

Pointing to another significant inconsistency in the evidence of the informant and the investigating officer, the Court noted that, according to the informant, it was the ASI who had taken the deceased to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw. The Court said that it is highly unusual that the informant did not accompany the deceased to the hospital. Instead, the informant claimed that the ASI had asked him to take the motorcycle to the police station. This is not believable, as, if the motorcycle was indeed required for investigation, it would have been taken by the police, not the informant.

On the other hand, the Court noted that the investigating officer testified that he had sent the ASI, along with a team of policemen, to the crime scene upon receiving the FIR. When he later received further information that the deceased was lying injured, he went to the scene himself, took the injured to the hospital, and left a constable behind to guard the crime scene. However, there is no mention of the informant accompanying the investigating officer to the hospital, nor did the informant testify to being present. The Court emphasised that this glaring inconsistency severely undermines the credibility of the informant and casts a shadow over the prosecution’s case.

The Court stated that there is no doubt that the deceased’s death was homicidal. Medical evidence confirmed that multiple stab wounds on his body caused profuse bleeding, leading to his death.

However, the Court highlighted that as according to the prosecution, the convicts had committed the murder, it was the prosecution’s responsibility to link the convicts to the murder of the deceased by presenting credible and legally admissible evidence. But, as observed, there is a complete lack of credible evidence to connect the convicts to the deceased’s homicidal death. In such circumstances, the convicts were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence of the convicts.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE