To deny the benefit of acquittal to accused who is not on appeal merely on the ground of a technicality, in a disbelieved case in entirety, would be close our eyes to a gross injustice, especially when we are empowered under Article 142 to do complete justice – Supreme Court [Judgement]

 

The Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon'ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, in an appeal,  has set aside the conviction of three accused in an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 passed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under provision of Article 142 of Indian Constitution.

The Court observed that to deny the benefit of acquittal to accused who is not on appeal merely on the ground of a technicality, in a disbelieved case in entirety, would be close our eyes to a gross injustice, especially when we are empowered under Article 142 to do complete justice.

Article 142 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or pending before it.

The Apex Court allowed the appeal and the conviction handed over by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court against the Appellants/Accused was set aside on the following grounds:- 

•      Witnesses on whose  ocular testimony was relied heavily were actually the persons who was named as accused by Appellant.

•      The Session Court believed the testimony of the witnesses relating to the presence of Appellant but disbelieved their evidence, relating to the alleged assault on the victim.

•      The High Court overlooked the fact that the Trial Court declared witnesses as hostile at the request of the prosecution.

•        The prosecution considered the niece of the decease as star witness and her statement was recorded after 21 days of the date of occurrence. The Session Court proceeded to believed evidence of star witness and convicted  all the accused. The High Court also relied upon the testimony of star witness and the medical evidence regarding the cause of death.

•         The witness who witnessed the seizure turned hostile.

•           Right from the beginning there was an attempt on the part of the prosecution to shield the culprits named in the FIR on account of political pressure. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court completely overlooked these aspects.

•       The Session Court and the High Court did not discharge the burden of providing best legal assistance to the accused as they were represented by amicus curiae either due to inability to engage a layer or due to non-appearance of the counsel engaged by them.

After hearing both parties at length and closely scrutinizing the sequence of events in the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the investigation officer has proceeded in reverse gears where within three days of the commission of the crime person named as accused in the FIR were made witnesses for the prosecution and the informants were made as accused.

“It is a fact that at times persons who commit a crime, themselves make/lodge the first information, so as to create an alibi of innocence. But in such case the investigation would normally proceed first against those named as accused in the FIR and, thereafter, the needle of suspicion may turn against the informant himself” – reference made on the decision in the case Kari Choudhary vs. Mst. Sita Devi & Ors. (2002)

The High Court gave credence to the testimony of a witness who admitted to have signed the seizure memo and memorandum statement outside a hotel situate near police station irrespective of the fact that he denied the seizure of weapons, used for committing crime, in his presence.

The Supreme Court also observed that the statement made by the star witness, that when two witnesses, who were originally made accused were taken into custody there were protests from people of their caste and they put pressure on the police to give clean chit, has made the prosecution as completely untrustworthy.

And there was nothing on record to show that the blood stains present in the weapons matched with the blood of the deceased. The High Court has proceeded on the wrong premise that there is scientific evidence  because as per Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) the weapons said to have been seized by the police contains stains of human blood. The prosecution has not established through the report of FSL that the blood stains contained in weapons were that of the deceased.

On the above issue  there are divergence of previous views by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Court relied on. Some of them are:-

Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1987) – the Court opined “…. That it would be far- fetched to conclude from the mere presence f blood-stained earth that the earth was stained with human blood and that the human blood was that of the victims….”

Raghunath, Ramkishan & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2003) – the Court held that the blood stain, though of a human blood, is not conclusive evidence to show that it belongs to the blood group of the deceased.

Balwan Singh vs. State of Chattisgarh (2019) – the court observed “there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove that the blood groups match. But the judicial conscience of the Court should be satisfied both about the recovery and about the origin of the human blood”.

In the light of the above case at hand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed investigation in this case was carried out by investigation officer was not with the intention of unearthening the truth, but for burying the same  fathom  deep that it was designed to turn the informants as accused and allow the real culprit in the FIR to escape.

Therefore after the considered view, the Court allowed the appeal and released the Appellant by setting aside the conviction of the Sessions Court and the High Court  and the Court also deemed fit to release one of the convicted accused who chose not to appeal solely on the ground that the Court disbelieved the prosecution case  in entirety.

Case: Madhav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Date of Judgement: 18.08.2021