under the circumstances...........

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.