'Possible That Police Set Up False Case After Killing Deceased In The Process Of Arrest' : Supreme Court Acquits 4 In 1989 Murder Case
The Supreme Court recently acquitted four persons who were convicted for a murder which happened in 1989. After appreciating the evidence, the Court formed an opinion that the case might have been set up by the police themselves after killing the deceased in the process of arrest(Pulen Phukan & Ors. Versus The State Of Assam).The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a Gauhati High...
The Supreme Court recently acquitted four persons who were convicted for a murder which happened in 1989. After appreciating the evidence, the Court formed an opinion that the case might have been set up by the police themselves after killing the deceased in the process of arrest(Pulen Phukan & Ors. Versus The State Of Assam).
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a Gauhati High Court judgement, which confirmed a Trial Court judgement convicting 11 in a murder case. Challenging this, four out of the 11 moved the Supreme Court.
The complainant’s case was that 13 people came to her home and without any reason, caused grievous injury on the head of her brother-in-law Robi Phukan (PW 2) by giving blows with sharp weapons. Three of the accused persons then committed murder of Pradip Phukan by assaulting him with sharp cutting weapons. Trial was conducted only against 11 out of the 13.
The prosecution witnesses' testimony that the police officers were present at the venue where the murder raised the suspicions of the Court. It cannot be ruled out that the police had reached the spot to arrest the deceased and some resistance happened which resulted in the death; and later the police set up a case knowing the enmity between the parties, the Court surmised.
Firstly, the Supreme Court noted that the informant (PW-1) and three other witnesses stated that police personnel had accompanied the accused and they were there throughout the incident. However, the Court viewed that the Trial Court didn’t seek a clarification regarding this.
“This fact is noticed by the Trial Court in its judgement but it fails to get this clarification from the prosecution as to prosecution as to what occasioned the presence of the police personnel accompanying the accused and standing outside the house of the deceased to watch the accused assault PW-2 and commit the murder of his brother. The Trial Court had simply brushed aside the argument of the defence on this count without giving a serious thought”.
According to the Court, if the police were present at the time of commission of the offence, they should’ve immediately acted to set the criminal machinery in motion by first apprehending the accused from the spot itself rather than “allowing them to get way”. This prompted the Court to doubt the veracity of the Prosecution’s version.
“The entire version of the prosecution witnesses that the police personnel accompanied the accused and were standing outside the house of the deceased creates a serious doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution story.”
Even the informant did not assign any specific role to any accused, the Bench added. The informant’s report only stated that 13 persons came to her house, some of them chased and followed the deceased who was trying to save himself by escaping from back courtyard and entering into the neighbour’s house where he was done to death, the Court mentioned.
It went ahead to check whether allegations of unlawful assembly and common object can be established. None of the eye-witnesses stated that all the accused had come with a common object of committing the murder, the Court said.
“None of the eye-witnesses have taken names of all the accused persons who are said to be 13 in number. None of the eye-witnesses have stated that all the accused persons had come with a common object of committing murder and assaulting the injured PW-2. From the above it is clear that it is difficult to decipher that all the members of the unlawful assembly were aware of the common object”.
The Court also expressed one more reason to discard the theory of unlawful assembly.
“PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that the police along with the accused had come to arrest the deceased and the injured. If that was the object and the police were taking help of the accused persons then also the factum of common object of committing the crime of murdering the deceased is not borne out. It could be that the common object known to the accused was of apprehending the deceased and the injured PW-2 as there was some criminal case registered against them lodged by Pulen Phukan, one of the accused. In view of the above analysis, we are unable to hold that there was an unlawful assembly and further to uphold the conviction under Section 149 IPC”.
Terming this as a possible “set-up by the police”, the Court stated that the former just went ahead with arresting the one of the accused after noting that there was some enmity between him and the victim.
“The above evidence creates a very serious doubt on the entire prosecution story. It is quite possible that the police personnel of the concerned Police Station were there to arrest the deceased and his brother and in that process some resistance may have resulted into the incident causing the death of Pradip Phukan. The injuries of PW-2 have not been proved as admittedly there was no injury report. Even the scribe of the FIR has not been produced nor the signatures have been proved. It is quite possible that it was a complete set-up by the police. They having committed the murder in the process of arresting the deceased, and thereafter, knowing the enmity between the two parties, set-up a false case against the accused”.
Trial Court's duty to get relevant clarifications
If the investigation in a case is tainted then it is the Trial Court’s duty to get the relevant clarifications to arrive at a just and fair conclusion, the Court reiterated.
The Trial Court’s duty is to carefully scrutinise the evidence; try to find out the truth on the basis of evidence led, a Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol said.
“Wherever necessary the Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard to facts and circumstances which may create doubt in the minds of the Court during trial. If the investigation is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the Trial Court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion. If the Trial Court fails to exercise this power and discretion vested in it then the judgment of the Trial Court may be said to be vitiated.”
Complainant's version can't be treated as 'gospel truth'
The Court further opined that prosecution’s job was not to accept the complainant’s version as the “Gospel Truth” but to ascertain the truth.
“The job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the truth. The evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC should be submitted”.
After assessing the evidence, the Court also said that the prosecution hadn’t established the place of occurrence by any material exhibit of having collected the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence. Even the material exhibit - the axe, wasn’t produced nor was there any evidence to that effect. To top it all, the PW-1 stated that she had no knowledge of the FIR’s contents, the Court noted.
“It is still a mystery as to how the Investigating Officer in his statement has stated that he had filed a charge-sheet against eight accused as five were absconding and there is no further statement regarding three more accused being arrested and put to trial, how the Trial Court proceeded to convict 11 accused and only two were set to be absconding. Even the scribe of the FIR has not been examined”.
In conclusion, the Court opined that though the death of Pradip Phukan was homicidal, the prosecution wasn’t able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. On these grounds, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and the Court set aside the High Court’s judgement.
Case Title: Pulen Phukan & Ors. Versus The State Of Assam | Criminal Appeal No.906 Of 2016
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (C) 265