2008 (5) TMI 639 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it is the statements of the eye witnesses which are of the utmost importance and unless very good reasons can be given for disbelieving them they must be accepted and the arguments with regard to the delay in the FIR or some minor contradictions in the statements under section 161 vis- -vis the statements in Court or a flaw in the recording of the postmortem or the inquest reports or the non-recovery of murder weapons etc. are a matter of little concern ?

Issues Involved:
1. Identification of assailants and their involvement.
2. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies.
3. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
4. Role of investigation and procedural lapses.
5. Impact of communal riots on the judicial process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Identification of Assailants and Their Involvement:
The judgment describes that the incident occurred in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition, leading to a communal riot. Eyewitnesses, including Taheruddin and his sons, identified several assailants. However, the High Court found significant contradictions in their testimonies. For instance, PW-2 did not name Gopal, who allegedly took a leading role, and Rahna, who shot an arrow. The High Court thus doubted the involvement of these individuals, leading to the acquittal of some accused. The Supreme Court noted that only five out of the twelve accused named in the FIR were convicted, with the involvement of the leader of the mob being seriously doubted.

2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The trial court relied heavily on the testimonies of PWs 2, 3, and 4, treating them as eyewitnesses. However, the High Court observed glaring contradictions in their statements made before the police and their depositions in court. For example, PW-3's account of the incident varied significantly between his police statement and court testimony. The Supreme Court also noted that PWs 2 and 3 did not witness the actual assault on the deceased, raising doubts about their reliability.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The FIR was lodged 15 hours after the incident, which the Supreme Court found suspicious, particularly in a case involving communal riots. The delay was not adequately explained, and the court emphasized that prompt lodging of FIRs is necessary for providing checks and balances. The judgment highlighted that the investigation had started even before the FIR was formally recorded, with essential actions like inquests and post-mortems already conducted.

4. Role of Investigation and Procedural Lapses:
The judgment criticized the investigation for several lapses. The G.D. Entry, which initiated the police's involvement, was not filed, and the contents were not disclosed. The investigating officer did not provide inquest reports, and there were discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the investigation appeared biased and tardy, with essential procedural steps not followed correctly. The court also highlighted that no presumption of improper investigation should be raised unless appropriate materials are brought on record.

5. Impact of Communal Riots on the Judicial Process:
The judgment extensively discussed the broader context of communal riots and their impact on the judicial process. It cited various commission reports highlighting police bias and the failure of civil administration during communal riots. The Supreme Court emphasized that even in cases of communal riots, the standard principles of law and evidence must be applied. The court rejected the notion that different norms should apply in such cases, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence as fundamental human rights.

Separate Judgments:
- S.B. Sinha, J.: Allowed the appeals, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and procedural lapses in the investigation. Emphasized the need for a fair trial and adherence to standard legal principles, even in cases of communal riots.
- Harjit Singh Bedi, J.: Dissented, emphasizing the unique context of communal riots and the challenges in investigating and prosecuting such cases. Argued that the statements of eyewitnesses should be given more weight, and minor procedural lapses should not overshadow the gravity of the crime. Dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions.

Order:
Due to the difference of opinion between the judges, the matter was referred to a three-judge bench for resolution. The registry was directed to place the records before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

← Previous Next →