(Cr. A. No. 171/2010)
Coram: G.S. Ahluwalia and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava J.J.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant/Accused named Ramnarayan was arrested for allegedly killing the deceased named Jaswant. According to the prosecution’s story, the complainant Banwari, along with his injured father Jaswant, lodged a F.I.R. in Police outpost, alleging that at about 8 P.M., his injured father Jaswant was sleeping in the courtyard. The complainant also went to sleep in the room. At about 9 P.M., he heard the noise of beating and shouting. The complainant came out of the house and found that his father was lying in an injured condition and was shouting. He saw that his father had two Farsa injuries (an injury caused by a weapon like an axe) on his head. A lot of blood was coming out and the injured were not in a position to speak. Before the complainant could come out of the house, the assailant had run away. The injured were sent for medical examination. Four incised and one lacerated wounds were found on the scalp, nose, chin etc. The injury expired on 20-12-2008. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was done. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant-accused was arrested on 21-12-2008. His memorandum was recorded. One Farsa (an axe) and one blood-stained shirt were seized from his possession. Blood-stained 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 sentenced for the offences under Sections 452, 302 of I.P.C by the trial court.
Under Section 452 of I.P.C, the sentence was 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) and fine Rs.500/- in default 1 month R.I. Under Section 302 of I.P.C, Life Imprisonment and fine Rs.1000/- in default 2 months R.I.
Section 452 of I.P.C mentions house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 302 of the I.P.C states punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Thereafter, the accused filed an appeal challenging the judgment and sentence by 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 the injured. It was submitted that no F.S.L. (Forensic Science Laboratory) report had been produced to prove that the Farsa or the clothes of the appellant-accused were stained with blood or not.
At the outset, the Honourable High Court observed 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.
Issues
- Was it the appellant-accused who was seen running away from the crime spot and was he the perpetrator of the crime?
- Whether blood was found on Farsa and clothes of the appellant-accused?
- Whether the death of Jaswant was homicidal in nature or not?
- Whether the police have done a proper and thorough investigation in this case?
Contention
The main point of argument in this case was whether Ramnarayan committed the crime. On one hand, it was proven that he was a psychosis patient and he claimed that he was innocent and had not committed the crime. On the other hand, he was framed as the accused because the blood-stained clothes were seized from his possession. The appellant-accused, abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. On 12-2-2009, an application for grant of bail was filed on the ground that the appellant-accused is of unstable mental condition. By an order passed on the same day, the prayer for bail was rejected, however, the prayer for treatment was allowed. Another point to be noted here is that although many witnesses stated that they had seen the appellant-accused run away from the crime spot, no substantial proof for the same was given. Ramnarayan was accused solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Also, there were no proper forensic lab reports produced before the Court. Except for the circumstantial evidence, there was no other ground for framing Ramnarayan as the accused.
Rationale
In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh examined each and every witness of the case. Addressing the first issue as to whether it was Ramnarayan who was seen running away from the crime spot and if he was the perpetrator of the crime, it was held by the Court that none of the witnesses had seen the accused-appellant run away from the crime spot. They had neither seen who the actual assailant was nor had seen who was running away from the spot, and could not identify either of them. The incident took place at night, and it is very clear from the statement of the deceased’s daughter-in-law that they could not see who had assaulted the deceased as it was dark; and moreover, they could notice the injuries of the deceased only when the chimney was lit up. 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, immediately after the incident.
Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecution to the Court claiming that it was the appellant-accused who was running away from the spot is not trustworthy. Considering the statements of the witnesses, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant-accused was seen by the 3 prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that undisputedly, the appellant-accused was of unsound mind – he was a psychosis patient, and he was given treatment during the trial also. Therefore, it was clear that he is an innocent person. It was also submitted that appellant-accused had been falsely implicated because his sister-in-law wanted to grab his entire property.
Thus, there is no solid evidence to state that the appellant-accused was the perpetrator of the crime.
Moving to the second issue – Whether blood was found on Farsa and clothes of the appellant-accused or not. There was no F.S.L. report produced to prove that the Farsa or the clothes of the appellant-accused were stained with blood. The Court stated that although the F.S.L. report was produced before the Trial Court, the Trial Court did not exhibit the same under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. which states “Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.” Therefore, the said F.S.L. The report has remained unexhibited. Thus, under these circumstances, the same cannot be read against the appellant-accused or in favour of prosecution.
The Court held as following:
“It is an undisputed fact that, F.S.L. The report was not available on record. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any blood was found on Farsi and clothes of the appellant-accused. It is true that even the independent witness of seizure does not support the prosecution case, but still the seizure can be proved by the evidence of police personnel, but in the present case, there is no evidence that whether any blood much less human blood was found on the Farsi and clothes 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.”
The third issue is whether Jaswant’s death was of homicidal nature. The injured Jaswant was sent for Medical Treatment. He was treated by Dr. Jalaluddin – Prosecution Witness. The doctor found some injuries on Jaswant’s body. When he was examined in brief, he said that one of the injuries was caused by a hard and blunt object. He clarified that he cannot say that by which weapon, the injuries were caused. Dr. Sudhir Rathor, one of the prosecution witnesses who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Jaswant found some injuries on his dead body. He admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused due to fall. He also could not clarify by which weapon the injuries were caused. In the report, it was mentioned that the cause of death was shock due to head injuries. It was held by the Court that Jaswant’s death was homicidal in nature.
Defects of Law
In this case, the evidence was not thoroughly examined. There was no proper forensic report on the blood-stained cloth and blood-stained farsa that was found. Had there been a proper report, it would have been solid evidence and would have given his case a great lead in finding out the real culprit.
Also, the police did not conduct a proper investigation. It seems as if they did it in a hurry. They could have explored the other possible angles of this case. There was the suicide of appellant-accused’s brother. There was also a possible and probable motive from the side of the appellant-accused’s sister-in-law for property. Due to the faulty investigation on the part of the police officials, an innocent person suffered. In this case, the appellant-accused is in jail from the date of his arrest i.e., 21-12-2008 i.e., approximately 13 years even though there was no mistake on his part.
The Court also observed that the Trial Court had not considered the effect of admissions made by the witnesses in their cross-examination. The Trial Court conveniently ignored the material aspects of the matter by just writing two lines that nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination which would make their evidence unreliable. It has to be noted that cross-examination is the only tool in the hand of the defence to dislodge the prosecution story and therefore, the Trial Court must appreciate the credibility and reliability of a witness after testing the examination-in-chief in the light of the cross-examination. The life and liberty of a person cannot be curtailed merely by mentioning that “nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of the witnesses, which may make their evidence unreliable.”
Inference
From this case, one can learn the importance of proper investigation in a criminal case. It is the duty and responsibility of the police to conduct a thorough and fair investigation. Just as how a proper investigation will help in nabbing the culprit, a poor investigation will let him go scot-free. Also, the significance of forensic evidence can be seen. Forensic science is an essential element in criminal investigations. It has a remarkable contribution in solving criminal cases of different types. Without the application of forensic science, criminals can never be convicted unless an eyewitness is present. Forensic science throws light on the smallest details and minute evidence that cannot be seen through naked eyes but may serve as an exceptional lead in the case.
The Trial Court did not consider some facts and that resulted in an innocent person spending 13 years of his life in jail. However, the Honourable High Court understood the pain that the accused-appellant underwent and held as follows – “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 when it is found that the investigation itself was faulty and was not done properly due to which 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.”
“It is really unfortunate that the appellant, who was suffering from psychosis, has remained in jail for approximately 13 years for no mistake on his part. Therefore, 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 Court directed the State to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs to the appellant for his false and malicious prosecution. The appellant was also given the freedom to institute civil suit for recovery of damages for the loss sustained by him.
In this case, it has come on record that Pappu, the brother of the appellant-accused, committed suicide after coming to know that Jaswant has expired. The family members of the deceased have admitted that the appellant-accused and his brother had a lot of property. It could be that Pappu might have killed the deceased and thereafter, he also committed suicide. There is also possibility that someone could have killed Pappu and made it appear as a suicide. Since, the appellant was not in a fit state of mind, therefore, a story must have been concocted by the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant, so that in case if he is sent to jail, then Pappu’s wife i.e., the appellant’s sister-in-law would be the only person who would get the complete control over the property. From my inference, there is a possibility that the false implication of the appellant-accused could have been with a solitary intention to grab the share of appellant in the property.
Sources
- “False Prosecution- ‘Psychosis’ Patient Suffers 13-Yr-Jail Term In Murder Case: MP High Court Acquits Him, Orders 3 Lakh Compensation” https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/psychosis-jail-13-year-murder-charge-madhya-pradesh-high-court-3-lakh-compensation-179132
- M.P. High Court Judgement https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123530489/
Written By:
NIKHITA S
First Year BBA LLB
IFIM Law School
1. Language and grammar-7/10
2. Subject matter-7.5/10 murder case.
3. Word count-2387
4. Researcher skills-8/10 simple and interesting
5. Citations-none
6. Format-yes
7. Recommended-yes