"Shabby Trial, Tainted Investigation" : Supreme Court Reverses Acquittal Of Former MP Prabhunath Singh In 1995 Double Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Friday convicted Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Prabhunath Singh in a double murder case of 1995, reversing his acquittal granted by the trial court and confirmed by the Patna High Court. 

Singh, who was contesting elections as a candidate of the Bihar People's Party (BPP) then, was accused of murdering two persons near a polling booth in Chhapra in March 1995 for not voting as per his suggestion.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court called the trial "shabby" and the investigation "tainted", which showed the "highhandedness of the accused-Respondent no.2, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party".

In 2008 a Patna court had acquitted Singh citing lack of evidence. The acquittal was later upheld by the Patna High Court in 2012. Consequently, the brother of one of the victims challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court.

The judgment was delivered today by a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S Oka, and Justice Vikram Nath.

“Prabhunath Singh (accused no.1) is thus liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder.” the Apex Court judgment reads. 

Pointing out several lapses in the trial, the Apex Court called the case "an exceptionally painful episode of our Criminal Justice System.” Some of the lapses include the lack of explanation for not presenting the scribe of the FIR in court. The Investigating Officer who was crucial to the case was also not produced by the prosecution. The Apex Court also questioned the Public Prosecutor's dubious conduct in examining witnesses under Section 311 of CrPC to strengthen the defense's position. 

The Apex Court observed that even though the accused was successful in covering most of his bases, including turning most witnesses hostile, the ‘glaring mistake’ on his part was the abduction of the mother of one of the deceased and an eye witness in the incident, ten days before her statement was to be recorded. A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed before the High Court in this regard, where it was noted that her statements before the Trial Court and her statement under Section 164 CrPC ‘were not free and voluntary but under duress and intimidation’.

“This Court is conscious of the fact that a path different from the normal is being adopted to determine the guilt of the accused. The Court is compelled to do so in the glaringly peculiar facts of the present case…” the Top Court said, finding the acquittal by the trial court and High Court to be erroneous on several counts: 

“The Trial Court and the High Court miserably failed to notice the sensitivity and intricacies of the case. Both the Courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s role, and the high-handedness of the accused as also the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, despite observations and findings having been recorded not only by the Administrative Judge but also by the Division Bench deciding Habeas Corpus petition.” the Court observed.

The Apex Court also observed that the conduct of the Public Prosecutor made it clear that he was acting in the interest of the accused, which the courts below failed to notice. The Court also ignored the judgement of the Habeas Corpus petition, which had held that the mother of the deceased was threatened and intimidated:

“They continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the Public Prosecutor was acting to the advantage of the accused rather than prosecuting the accused with due diligence and honesty. The Presiding Officer of the Trial Court acquitting the accused as also the learned Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision, were both well-aware of the facts, legal procedures, as well as the law regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case. Both the courts below ignored the administrative reports as also the judgment of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition. In fact they should have taken judicial notice of the same. They completely failed to take into consideration the conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident, which was extremely relevant and material in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. They failed to draw any adverse inference against the accused with respect to their guilt.” the Court held. 

The Apex Court has directed the Secretary of the Home Department, Bihar and Director General of Police, Bihar to take Singh into custody. He has  been asked to be produced before the Apex Court on September 1st, to be heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed.

“The Secretary, Department of Home, State of Bihar and the Director General of Police, Bihar are directed to ensure that Prabhunath Singh (Respondent No. 2) is taken into custody forthwith and produced before this Court to be heard on the question of sentence in view of Section 235 CrPC.

Let the matter be listed again on 1st September, 2023. On the said date, accused Prabhunath Singh (respondent no. 2) be produced before this Court in custody for the aforesaid purpose.” The Court stated.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Title: Harendra Rai V. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.1726 of 2015

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664

Click here to read/download judgment