There are cases and cases- some of them are reported in journals and some are not. Of these, some
do trouble the mind even if as a professionals we tend to read reports mechanically and with an academically eye, to
assess their value as precedents. Here is one such case that drew our
attention. It is very troublesome for many reasons as we try and discuss the
facts and then their implications.
The case unfolds in a very gruesome fashion. [(2019) 2 SCC
(Cri) 300: (2019) 4 SCC 522 Digamber Vaishnav
& anr Vs State of Chattisgarh] Five women lie dead in their home in
different rooms around 4 am, one morning. It seems to be a very clear case of homicide
as there are injury marks on many parts of the bodies. The police are informed and investigation
takes place the same day with the usual process of collecting evidence begun. The police find some strands of hair clutched
in the hands of one of the deceased; a blood stained shirt later said to belong
to one of the accused; some clods of soil, blood stained and plain and a woolen shawl. They arrest the
accused after collecting and correlating the evidence. They find on the
accused, some suspicious cash, a shirt worn by one of the accused that had two
buttons missing, corresponding to those that have been recovered from the place of
occurrence. Later, finger prints of one of the accused
corresponds to those found on a bottle of liquor found at the scene of the crime.
The trial court after elaborate trial convicted and sentenced the accused to
death under S. 302, 394 & 34 IPC. The High Court confirmed the same.
The Supreme Court, however, after going through the entire
evidence finds many flaws, one of which is that the only witness was a child, whose
statement was not corroborated. They find that it was not safe to rely upon this
witness’s evidence as there were several inconsistencies in her statement. As the case solely rested on circumstantial
evidence it was held necessary that the evidence should be cogent and an unbreakable
chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused should be established. Unfortunately, it was found that the human
hair was not a match with that of the accused; similarly the shirt was not
identified properly to be that of the accused; the motor cycle seized did not
match that of the accused. Many such inconsistencies including non examination
of a crucial witness create a doubt in the mind of the court that the
prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Last but not the
least , it is found that the last seen theory advanced by the prosecution, i.e. the accused were last seen with the the deceased is also held to be
insufficiently proved. Hence the Court acquitted the accused.
Now aside from all the
technical niceties and the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt one aspect of
the case is highly disturbing: the manner in which many serious crimes are
investigated by the investigating agencies.
Many a case falls because of poor investigation and insufficient evidence,
more than the effort of the defense to effectively attack the prosecution
case. Now here is a case where five
people have been murdered in a gruesome manner inside their home. Who committed
the crime? The question remains open and the fact that such ruthless murderers
are still walking free in society to people’s utter terror.
So shouldn’t the Court direct the investigation agency to
investigate such cases afresh and find out the murderers instead of
mechanically acquitting them and closing the case? It is not something new, as if we remember right, in one case the Madras
High Court has done so, ordering further investigation on acquittal of the
accused.
