Investigation Buried The Truth Fathom Deep: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused In A Murder Case
Investigation in this case was carried out not with the intention of unearthing the truth, but for burying the same fathom deep, the Supreme Court remarked while acquitting all the accused in a murder case of 2008.The case pertains to a murder of Pappu @ Nand Kishore in the year 2008. The prosecution case was that Sahodra had taken the deceased victim (who was her brother in law) to the ...
Investigation in this case was carried out not with the intention of unearthing the truth, but for burying the same fathom deep, the Supreme Court remarked while acquitting all the accused in a murder case of 2008.
The case pertains to a murder of Pappu @ Nand Kishore in the year 2008. The prosecution case was that Sahodra had taken the deceased victim (who was her brother in law) to the Government Hospital and sent a false information to the Police as though the murderous assault on the victim was committed by two other persons by name Ruia and Kailash. Though the police filed FIR on the basis of information by Sahodra, later the case turned against Sahodra and her family. Thus Sahodra Bai, her husband Raju Yadav and her brother Madhav were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Pappu @ Nand Kishore (Raju's brother). The High court confirmed the conviction.
In appeal, the court observed that the reason why the IO did not even suspect the role of Ruia and Kailash Yadav in the commission of the crime, remains unexplained.
"We are conscious of the fact that at times persons who commit a crime, themselves make/lodge the first information, so as to create an alibi of innocence. But even in such cases the investigation would normally proceed first against those named as accused in the FIR and, thereafter, the needle of suspicion may turn against the informant himself...It happens at times that the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown persons, to misdirect the investigation of an offence.But even in such a case, it is only during the course of investigation into the first FIR that the case may take a Uturn", the bench observed.
The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that there was scientific evidence to point to the guilt of the accused, merely because as pe FSL Report, the knife and lathis said to have been seized by the police, contained stains of human blood. "There cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove that the blood groups match. But the judicial conscience of the Court should be satisfied both about the recovery and about the origin of the human blood.", it said.
"We are clearly of the view that the investigation in this case was carried out by PW14, not with the intention of unearthing the truth, but for burying the same fathom deep, for extraneous considerations and that it was designed to turn the informant and her family members as the accused and allow the real culprits named in the FIR to escape,,, Both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court have completely overlooked some of the important admissions made by PWs 9 and 14. They have not even taken into account the normal human conduct. It is unbelievable that A1, A2 25 and A3 caused the death of A1's brother due to the failure of the victim to return an amount of Rs.250/ due and payable to Ruia (PW7) and that thereafter, they deliberately named Ruia as the accused. It is equally unbelievable that one of the persons who killed the victim, in the presence of witnesses, took the body of the victim to the hospital in an autorickshaw. The normal human behaviour in such circumstances will be either to flee the place of occurrence or to go to the police station to surrender, except in cases where they are intelligent and seasoned criminals. Neither did happen.", the bench observed.
The court then proceeded to acquit all the accused, including the one who did not file the appeal. "This is a case where we have disbelieved, in entirety, the story of the prosecution. Therefore, to deny the benefit of the said conclusion to A1 merely on the ground of a technicality that he is not on appeal would be to close our eyes to a gross injustice, especially when we are empowered under Article 142 to do complete justice.", the court added.
Case: Madhav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : CrA 852 of 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 393
Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian
Counsel: Adv Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Adv Amit Arjariya, for appellants,, Adv S.U. Lalit for state
Click here to Read/Download Judgment