9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1970 - SC - Indian LawsAward of death penalty - Rape - acquittal of the accused - offences punishable Under Sections 395, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 376 (2)(g), Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 396, 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - The case rests on the deposition of these two eye witnesses PW1 PW8, and they identified the Accused either in the TI parade and/or before the Court. Considering the entire material on record, it appears that the prosecution in support of its case has solely relied on the evidence of identification. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the charge is of rape and murder, there is no forensic evidence corroborating the prosecution case. Though, as per the case of the prosecution, the Accused stripped the ornaments from the wife and daughter of Trambak and took ₹ 3,000/- from Trambak, there is no recovery except one broken white metal chain, which was allegedly seized during the house search of Bhojubai Appa Shinde, the mother of A5 on 26.06.2003. PW8 who claims to be an eye witness, she is not a reliable and trustworthiness witness. Her entire testimony in Court is full of material omissions/contradictions/improvements. Prior to her deposition in Court, her two statements dated 6.6.2003 and 7.6.2003 were recorded by the police and the magistrate respectively. The entire description of incident given by PW8 in the Court has not been stated by her in her earlier statements. This evidence has come for the first time during the deposition in Court by way of an improvement - The first time PW8 gave any details about the incident or ascribed the roles to the Accused persons was two and a half years later in the Court and never before that. Her failure to give any statement to the police and the two magistrates either about the events occurring during the incident or the roles played by different persons render her evidence unreliable. When in her cross-examination, she was confronted with such omissions/improvements, she has taken only one thing that she told this to the police but she does not know why the police did not record the same. However, the same is not corroborated by any other evidence, more particularly the deposition of the IO and/or the magistrates. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon the deposition of PW8 and to convict the Accused. It is also required to be noted that even according to PW8, she was subjected to rape, however, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the rape on her by leading cogent evidence, more particularly the forensic evidence. Therefore, to that extent also she is not reliable. There is one another reason why PW8 is not to be believed on the ground that she is unreliable and not trustworthy. It is required to be noted that on 7.6.2003, i.e., two days after the incident, her statement was recorded by PW13 - Ramesh Sonawane - Special Executive Magistrate in the hospital. PW13 was called by the investigating officer to record her dying declaration. It has come on record that her dying declaration/statement was recorded on 7.6.2003, i.e., two days after the incident, PW8 identified photographs of four people from album of notorious criminals as those who committed the offence. Admittedly, the present Accused are not amongst those four persons identified by PW8 from the photo album. It is required to be noted that in her deposition she had not stated anything about her statement recorded by PW13 on 7.6.2003 and she identified the photographs of four people from album of notorious criminals shown to her. Therefore, to that extent, there is also a suppression of material fact by PW8. Nothing is allowed by the law which is contrary to the truth. In Indian criminal jurisprudence, the Accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under different jurisprudences of some of the countries in the world. The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human rights at a much higher pedestal and the Accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. The alleged Accused is entitled to fair and true investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play a balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic Rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Murder and rape is indeed a reprehensive act and every perpetrator should be punished expeditiously, severely and strictly. However, this is only possible when guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt - the prosecution/investigating agency is expected to act in an honest and fair manner without hiding anything from the Accused as well as the Courts, which may go against the prosecution. Their ultimate aim should not be to get conviction by hook or crook. The investigating officer ought to have conducted an investigation on that line and ought to have arrested those four persons and ought to have conducted the investigation qua those four persons. On the contrary, the Accused in the present case were arrested after a period of one and a half months and that too on transfer warrants, though there was no description of the Accused given by either PW1 or PW8. A6 was arrested after a period of one and a half year. It is to be noted that all the Accused persons are nomadic tribes coming from the lower strata of the society and are very poor labourers. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, false implication cannot be ruled out since it is common occurrence that in serious offences sometime innocent persons are roped in. The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt - this is a fit case for further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua those four persons, who were identified by PW8 on 7.6.2003, the reference of whom is in the statement recorded by PW13. The State of Maharashtra is directed to pay a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- to each of the Accused by way of compensation, to be deposited by the State with the learned Sessions Court within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, the same be paid to the concerned Accused on proper identification. The learned Sessions Court is directed to see that the said amount shall be used for their rehabilitation. Murder and rape is indeed a reprehensive act and every perpetrator should be punished - the Chief Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra are directed to look into the matter and identify such erring officers/officials responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, real culprits are out of the clutches of law and because of whose lapses the case has resulted into acquittal in a case where five persons were killed brutally and one lady was subjected to even rape. Therefore, the Chief Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra are directed to enquire into the matter and take departmental action against those erring officers/officials, if those officers/officials are still in service. The instant direction shall be given effect to within a period three months from today. The criminal appeals preferred by the Accused are hereby allowed, and all the Accused are hereby acquitted for the offences for which they were tried. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case - Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of the accused. 2. Identification of the accused by eyewitnesses. 3. Fairness and completeness of the investigation. 4. Adequacy and reliability of evidence. 5. Compensation for wrongful incarceration. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Accused: The judgment analyzed the conviction and sentencing of six accused individuals for multiple offenses including murder, robbery, and rape. The Sessions Court had sentenced all accused to death under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with various other punishments for other offenses. The High Court upheld the death sentence for three of the accused (A1, A2, and A4) and commuted the death sentence for the remaining three (A3, A5, and A6) to life imprisonment. However, upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and sentences, leading to the acquittal of all accused. 2. Identification of the Accused by Eyewitnesses: The prosecution's case heavily relied on the identification of the accused by two eyewitnesses, PW1 and PW8. The Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of this identification, noting several inconsistencies and issues: - The incident occurred at night with insufficient lighting, making it difficult for witnesses to identify the assailants. - The identification parades were conducted after significant delays (50 days for A1 to A5 and over a year for A6), which could lead to mistaken identification. - PW8 had identified four different individuals from a photo album shortly after the incident, none of whom were among the accused on trial. - The Supreme Court found that the identification by PW1 and PW8 was unreliable due to these factors and could not be the sole basis for conviction. 3. Fairness and Completeness of the Investigation: The Supreme Court highlighted several lapses in the investigation: - The investigating officers failed to follow up on the identification of four individuals by PW8 shortly after the incident. - There was no forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime scene. - The prosecution suppressed material facts, including the early identification by PW8, which could have exonerated the accused. - The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and honest investigation and found that the investigation in this case was neither fair nor complete, violating the fundamental rights of the accused. 4. Adequacy and Reliability of Evidence: The Supreme Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be inadequate and unreliable: - There was no forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints) linking the accused to the crime. - The only piece of physical evidence, a broken white metal chain, was weak and insufficient to establish guilt. - The testimonies of PW1 and PW8 were inconsistent and full of material omissions and contradictions. - The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration: Given the wrongful incarceration of the accused for 16 years, the Supreme Court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay a compensation of ?5,00,000 to each of the accused. The Court recognized the severe trauma and stress faced by the accused, including one who was a juvenile at the time of the crime. The compensation was awarded under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused due to the lack of reliable evidence and the failure of a fair investigation. The Court also directed further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the four individuals identified by PW8 shortly after the incident. Additionally, the Court ordered compensation for the wrongful incarceration of the accused and directed the State to take disciplinary action against the erring officers responsible for the lapses in the investigation.
|
