INEFFICIENCY
(OR NEGATIVE EFFICIENCY IN SUPPRESSING
THE CASE?) OF THE INVESTIGATORS AND THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SAVED CULPRITS
FROM DEATH SENTENCE.
This
is a Supreme Court of India Judgement dated 01/07/2015 in which a barbaric and
cold blooded murder accused were set free only on the ground of doubt on
account of the inefficiency (or negative
efficiency in suppressing the case?) of the investigators and the public
prosecutor to bring the facts on record. However, unlike in the famous Aarushi Murder Case of New Delhi, there
is no order for reinvestigation to find out who are the real accused. So the
real culprits are roaming free now.
It is nothing less than a Hollywood film
story.
The murder
according to the prosecution witness was like this: On the fateful day of murder, a small boy aged about 8 years, was playing near Ambedkar Park
(Uttar Pradesh). At about 10 a.m. the main accused took the boy to her baithak, which was seen by villagers namely the witness and another villager. At that time three accused
sons of the main accused who along with the main accused were sitting in the Verandah. They went inside
taking the boy along with them and did not come out for about half an hour. It was alleged
that the main accused and her sons then came out with a “thaal” filled with articles of
worship (pooja samagri) and went towards Chamunda Math for worship. Since witness and the other villager did not see the boy coming out, they suspected some foul play and soon
after main accused and her sons had left for Chamunda Math, they went inside the baithak. As
they entered, they saw the dead body of the boy lying in a pool of blood with
nostrils and ears cut. They raised hue
and cry, which attracted number of villagers. When the villagers saw the body
of the boy, the situation took an ugly turn and there was a complete chaos. The
people then went to the Math and assaulted the main accused and her sons.
The
police thereafter arrived in the village and Inquest Panchanama was conducted
between 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Around this time, the main accused and her sons were arrested at
about 3:30 p.m. After the inquest, the body of the boy was sent for post mortem. Dr. R. K. conducted post mortem at 4:30 p.m. According to him, the cause of
death was asphyxia resulting from throttling. It was also stated that some of the injuries were possible by a sharp cutting weapon.
In the
meantime, all the accused were arrested and on personal search of accused,
blood stained dharati or sickle was recovered.
After
completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against them and they were
tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Bulandshahar.
The trial
Court after considering the material on record, found the eye witness account
coming from the witness to be trustworthy and that the case was fully established
against the main accused and her sons. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of
the prosecution and the accused on the issue of punishment, the Court by its
further order found the case to be rarest of rare warranting extreme punishment
of death penalty. Therefore, death penalty was imposed on the accused, subject
to confirmation by the High Court.
The
matter reached the High Court. By its judgment the High Court acquitted the
accused of the charges leveled against them. The High Court accepted that the
prosecution had proved that the boy was done to death at about
10 a.m. on 24.02.2006 in the baithak owned by the accused. It however took the view that the prosecution
had failed to prove the complicity of the accused in the offence. It observed
that looking to its contents and language, the First Information Report did not
appear to be a genuine document and the scribe was also not examined. According
to the High Court it did not stand to reason that large number of villagers had
apprehended the accused and given them thrashing and yet allowed them to escape
and that the main accused, a lady of 58 years, would so succeed in running away.
It also found force in the contention of the respondents that the place of
occurrence was an open place and accessible to all.
Then
the State being aggrieved, filed appeal before the SC challenging
the order of acquittal passed by the H C.
According
to the Supreme Court, the evidence of the sole witness needs to be considered with
caution and after testing it against other material. Further, such evidence
must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion. So SC examined the
testimony of the sole witness in the context of the material on record. It took
note that apart from his own testimony nothing has been placed on record by the
prosecution which could lend corroboration to his own presence and the content
of his version. First, no reason has
been given why the witness and another villager were sitting on the bench outside the clinic of the
doctor. Neither the doctor nor the other villager were examined.
Beyond the testimony of the witness himself, there is nothing to indicate
whether the witness was actually there at the relevant time or not. Secondly, the place from where he allegedly witnessed
the occurrence was not a natural place where either the witness resides or
carries on any vocation. The reason for his being there was not placed on
record. Again the reason for his
continuing to be there for 20-25 minutes was also not spelt out. Thirdly, none from the house of the boy was examined nor throw any light as to when the boy left the house and in
whose company he was playing. The prosecution also did not give any names of
those children nor had anybody else been examined to say that they had seen the
children playing at the place in question.
There was nothing on record which could corroborate that the boy was actually
present with other children. Fourthly,
there was nothing to indicate how far the house of the boy was and whether that was
the normal place where the boy would always be playing. Lastly, if the incident
created chaos in the village and the villagers went and thrashed, there was no
reason why none of them was examined.
As
regards his version about the incident, the manner in which it was occurred,
the involvement of the accused - whether all or some of them, there is nothing
on record which could possibly allow the Court to test the authenticity of the
version of the sole witness. To the Court, it was doubtful whether the witness could be called a natural and truthful witness and whether he could be
completely relied upon. The movements of the boy were also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested
by the witness.
Another
point noted by the SC is that the accused were apprehended on the same day when
one of them was allegedly found to be in possession of blood stained dharati or
sickle. According to the prosecution the weapon was blood stained and was kept
in the folds of dhoti. However, no such blood stained dhoti was recovered. For
that matter no blood stained clothes were recovered from any of the accused
though they were supposed to be committed the crime which left body of the boy in
a pool of blood. Even though the blood stains found on the cemented portion of
the Chamunda Math, were quite disintegrated as per FSL examination.
In
the circumstances explained and particularly when the SC was considering an
appeal against acquittal, according to the SC, interference in this case would be justified
and called for, only if they find that the testimony of the sole witness of
such character that it could be fully relied upon. In this case, where the accused were
being tried for an offence punishable with capital punishment, the scrutiny
needs to be stricter. In the view the SC, material on record definitely falls short
and the accused were entitled to the ‘benefit of doubt’. The SC therefore,
affirmed the view taken by the High Court and dismissed the State appeal. The appeal
preferred by the Complainant was also dismissed.
(Reference:-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.623-24/2008, State of U.P., ….
Appellant V/s Satveer & Ors. …. Respondents,
Judgement dated July 01
ALSO VISIT MY FOLLOWING BLOGS/WEBSITE:
indiantravelexperience.manjaly.net
centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net
cagreport.manjaly.net
publiccause.manjaly.net
https://www.facebook.com/afraudintheindianconstitution?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
www.manjaly.net
ALSO VISIT MY FOLLOWING BLOGS/WEBSITE:
indiantravelexperience.manjaly.net
centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net
cagreport.manjaly.net
publiccause.manjaly.net
https://www.facebook.com/afraudintheindianconstitution?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
www.manjaly.net
