Police may have set up case to save face: SC acquits four in 1989 Murder Case

 

The Supreme Court has acquitted four men convicted in a 1989 murder case on the grounds that the evidence is unreliable and that there is serious doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution story.

A three-Judge Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol has even apprehended that there is that the police personnel while making the arrest had caused the accidental death and thus fabricate the case against the accused to cover up the same as he had animosity with the deceased.

 

"It is quite possible that the police personnel of the concerned Police Station were there to arrest the deceased and his brother and in that process some resistance may have resulted into the incident causing the death of Pradip Phukan. The injuries of PW2 have not been proved as admittedly there was no injury report"

Highlighting that even the scribe of the FIR has not been produced nor the signatures have been proved, the Court asserted that it is quite possible that it was a complete set-up by the police. The Court pointed out that no explanation to the presence of the police personnel throughout the incident, to event the point of murder has been produced.

"They having committed the murder in the process of arresting the deceased, and thereafter, knowing the enmity between the two parties, set-up a false case against the accused. Apparently for this reason, no explanation has come forward to explain the presence of the police personnel of Chabua Police Station throughout the incident."

 

Brief Facts of the Case

The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal challenging a 2015 Gauhati High Court judgment affirming the conviction and life sentence of the accused-appellants by the trial court.

A total of 11 accused were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 302,149 Indian Penal Code, out of which 4 appealed the sentence.

As per the FIR, filed in 1989, the sister-in-law of the deceased stated that a total of thirteen residents of her village came to her house, and caused grievous injury on the head of her brother-in-law by giving blows with sharp weapons.

The Trial Court found the evidence of the prosecution, 'unquestionable' and therefore, convicted all the eleven accused who were on trial. The High Court later went on to affirm the same.

The second appeal thus has been filed before the Apex Court. 

 

Supreme Court's Observation

The Court at the outset noted that the job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the truth.

"The evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC should be submitted, " the court noted.

 

It went on to state that the the duty of the Trial Court is to carefully scrutinise the evidence, try to find out the truth on the basis of evidence led.

"Wherever necessary the Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard to facts and circumstances which may create doubt in the minds of the Court during trial. If the investigation is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the Trial Court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion. If the Trial Court fail to exercise this power and discretion vested in it then the judgment of the Trial Court may be said to be vitiated."

In the present case, the Court said that the three eye-witnesses have categorically stated that police personnel had accompanied the accused and they were there throughout the incident but the trial court failed to obtain a clarification to this regard and had simply brushed aside the argument of the defence on this count without giving a serious thought.

"If the police personnel were present at the time of commission of the offence, they should have immediately acted upon to set the criminal machinery in motion by first apprehending the accused from the spot itself rather than allowing them to get way by accompanying the police to the Police Station while continuing to assault the injured (PW-2) on the way. The entire version of the prosecution witnesses that the police personnel accompanied the accused and were standing outside the house of the deceased creates a serious doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution story."

Further, examining the evidence, the court stated that the eye-witness didn't assign any specific role to any accused and only stated that 13 persons came to her house, some of them chased and followed the deceased who was trying to save himself by escaping from back courtyard and entering into the neighbour’s house where he was done to death."Her statements also contradict the FIR contents as well, as the court described and concluded that her statements do not inspire confidence and 'appears to be a tutored version'.

 

The other two eye-witnesses (wife and brother) also have different version of the incident, the Court observed 

Addressing the legal question as to whether in the facts and circumstances it was a case of unlawful assembly and further the accused were 27 members of the unlawful assembly with common object is made out or not, the Court answered in negative as it observed after analysis that it is difficult to decipher that all the members of the unlawful assembly were aware of the common object.

There is one more reason to discard the theory of unlawful assembly, the Court added.

"PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that the police along with the accused had come to arrest the deceased and the injured. If that was the object and the police were taking help of the accused persons then also the factum of common object of committing the crime of murdering the deceased is not borne out. It could be that the common object known to the accused was of apprehending the deceased and the injured PW-2 as there was some criminal case registered against them lodged by Pulen Phukan, one of the accused. In view of the above analysis, we are unable to hold that there was an unlawful assembly and further to uphold the conviction under Section 149 IPC."

On the issue as to whether the named accused were the actual assailants or not and whether the eye-witnesses’ version of naming the five accused, the Court concluded that the evidence creates a very serious doubt on the entire prosecution story. It even apprehended that the case could be a fabricated one as the Police might be trying to cover a mishap on its part.

"It is quite possible that the police personnel of the concerned Police Station were there to arrest the deceased and his brother and in that process some resistance may have resulted into the incident causing the death of Pradip Phukan. The injuries of PW2 have not been proved as admittedly there was no injury report."

 

The Court note that the prosecution has not established the place of occurrence by any material exhibit of having collected the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and even the material exhibit, the axe, which is said to have been taken into custody by the police whether on the date of the incident or two days thereafter has also not been produced nor any evidence led to that effect.

It is still a mystery as to how the Investigating Officer in his statement has stated that he had filed a charge-sheet against eight accused as five were absconding and there is no further statement regarding three more accused being arrested and put to trial, how the Trial Court proceeded to convict 11 accused and only two were set to be absconding, the Court stressed adding that even the scribe of the FIR has not been examined.

Stating that one of the eyewitnesses has given statements after admitting that she did not know the contents of the FIR, her version becomes extremely relevant.

The Court thus ruled that it is not convinced that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants and they will be entitled to benefit of doubt.

The appeals were accordingly allowed.

 CASE TITLE: Pulen Phukan and Others v. State of Assam, 2023 Latest Caselaw 264 SC

CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.906 OF 2016

CORAM: Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol

CITATION: 2023 Latest Caselaw 264 SC 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)

  If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .