False Prosecution- 'Psychosis' Patient Suffers 13-Yr-Jail Term In Murder Case: MP High Court Acquits Him, Orders 3 Lakh Compensation

The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava remarked thus:

"His honourable acquittal is not sufficient to apply ointment on his wounds suffered by him on account of violation of his fundamental right of life and liberty."

The facts in brief

The Appellant/Accused was arrested for allegedly killing the deceased. One Farsa and one blood-stained shirt stained with blood were seized from his possession. Bloodstained and plain earth from the spot as well as the blood-stained shirt of the injured (Deceased) was also seized.

The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 302,307,452,324 of I.P.C and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 452, 302 of I.P.C by the trial court.

Thereafter, he filed an appeal challenging the judgment and sentence submitting that the entire prosecution story was based on a solitary circumstance i.e., the appellant-accused was seen running away from the house of injured.

It was submitted that no F.S.L. report had been produced to prove that the Farsa or the cloths of the appellant-accused were stained with blood or not.

It was also submitted that undisputedly, the appellant-accused was of unsound mind, and he was given treatment during the trial also, therefore, it was clear that he is an innocent person.

Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant-accused had been falsely implicated because his sister wanted to grab the entire property.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the prosecution story was based on circumstantial Evidence i.e.,

• The appellant-accused was seen running away from the spot;
• Recovery of blood-stained Farsa and blood-stained shirt of the appellant.

Taking into account the statement of the witness, the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant/accused was seen by the 3 prosecution witnesses.

The Court also noted that none of the witnessed had stated about the source of light and on the contrary, relying on the evidence of one Kamleshbai (P.W.3), the Court observed that it was dark and they could see the injuries only when they lit up the chimney.

The Court also noted that none of them could say anything with utmost surety regarding the identity of the person who was seen running away from the spot and whether it was the Appellant/accused.

Thus, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant-accused was seen running away from the spot, immediately after the incident.

Regarding the recovery of blood stained farsa from the Appellant/accused, the Court observed thus:

"It is undisputed fact that, F.S.L., report was not available on record. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any blood was found on Farsi and cloths of the appellant-accused or not? It is true that even the independent witness of seizure doesn't support the prosecution case, but still the seizure can be proved by the evidence of police personals, but in the present case, there is no evidence that whether any blood much less human blood was found on the Farsi and cloths of the appellant accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the second circumstance of seizure of blood-stained Farsi and blood-stained clothes of the appellant-accused."

Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused and accordingly, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 452,302 of I.P.C.

Further, noting that there was a possibility that the appellant/accused was falsely implicated with a solitary intention to grab his share in the property, the Court gave him the liberty to institute civil suit for recovery of damages for the loss sustained by him and said:

"Life and Liberty is a Fundamental Right of a citizen of India, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is true, that mere acquittal in all the cases may not invite payment of compensation to the accused persons, but where it is found that the investigation itself was faulty and was not done properly, as a result an innocent person has remained in jail for approximately 13 years, then this Court cannot shut its eyes towards its Constitutional Duty to safeguard the fundamental right of the appellant-accused as guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

Thus, the state government was directed to pay him 3 lakhs as compensation within one month.

Case title - Ramnarayan Vs. State of M.P.

Click here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment