Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convicts Due to Lack of Credible Evidence: A Landmark Judgment

 

Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convicts Due to Lack of Credible Evidence: A Landmark Judgment
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

 

In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of credible and legally admissible evidence in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India recently acquitted three murder convicts in a 36-year-old case, setting aside the conviction orders of both the Trial Court and the Rajasthan High Court. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlights the critical role of the prosecution in establishing a clear and unambiguous connection between the accused and the crime.

Case Background

The case dates back to an incident where the deceased, who shared a strained relationship with the convicts, was allegedly attacked by the accused while returning home. According to the prosecution, the convicts assaulted the deceased and an informant with knives and swords, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The informant managed to escape and lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the nearby police station. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries, leading to the addition of Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the FIR.

After an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against eight accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the IPC. However, four of the accused died before the trial concluded. The Trial Court acquitted one accused and convicted the remaining three under Sections 302 read with Section 148 IPC. The High Court later modified the conviction to Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC but upheld the life imprisonment sentence. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the convicts approached the Supreme Court.

Key Issues and Judicial Analysis

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and identified several critical inconsistencies and lapses that undermined the case.

1. Unreliable Testimony of the Informant: The Court noted that the informant’s conduct was highly unusual. Despite the police station being merely 200 meters away, the informant did not seek immediate help or raise an alarm. His testimony was riddled with contradictions, including discrepancies about whether the deceased was stabbed before or after falling from the motorcycle. Additionally, the informant had a history of being a "stock witness" for the police, casting further doubt on his credibility.
2. Inadequate Investigation: The investigation was marred by significant lapses. The motorcycle used by the deceased was not seized, and no forensic examination was conducted on bloodstains at the crime scene. The weapons allegedly used in the crime were not produced in court, and the seizure witnesses turned hostile. The Court emphasized that the absence of forensic evidence, such as bloodstains on the weapons or the convicts’ clothing, weakened the prosecution’s case.
3. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies: The testimony of the deceased’s brother-in-law was also inconsistent. He failed to raise an alarm during the assault or take the deceased to the hospital immediately. Instead, he went home to inform other family members, which the Court found unnatural.
4. Unnatural Circumstances Surrounding the Crime Scene: The prosecution claimed that 100 to 150 people were present at the crime scene, yet none intervened or raised an alarm. The investigating officer, however, found the scene deserted upon arrival. The Court found it implausible that such a violent assault would go unnoticed, especially given the proximity of the police station.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that while the deceased’s death was undoubtedly homicidal, the prosecution failed to establish a credible link between the convicts and the crime. The absence of legally admissible evidence, coupled with the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and investigative lapses, entitled the convicts to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the accused.

Legal Implications

This judgment reiterates the fundamental principle of criminal law that the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution. It underscores the necessity of thorough and unbiased investigations, as well as the importance of credible witness testimonies and forensic evidence. The ruling also serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion or circumstantial evidence without proper corroboration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is delivered based on concrete evidence rather than conjecture. For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a critical reference point in cases where the prosecution’s case is built on shaky foundations.