Deciding Authority: Supreme Court
Briefly, the facts of the case are:
At about 10.00 p.m. on December 14, 1992, Mohd. Taheruddin (PW2) a resident of village, Changmazi Pathar, District Nagaon in the State of Assam was guarding his paddy crop in his field close to his house. Md. Mustafa Ahmed (PW3), one of the two sons of Mohd. Taheruddin was sleeping at home in one of the rooms while Md. Hanif Ahmed (PW4) was together with one Zakir, said to be a close relative, was sleeping in the kitchen. Sahera Khatoon wife of Mohd. Taheruddin and his daughters Hazera Khatoon, Jahanara Begum, Samana Khatoon and Bimala were sleeping in another room. A mob allegedly comprising nearly twenty people entered the house of Mohd. Taheruddin and forcibly opened the door. Around the same time another house belonging to one Nandu situate at some distance from Mohd. Taheruddin’s house was on fire. The prosecution case is that Md. Mustafa Ahmed (PW3) heard accused Gopal Ghose calling for `Munshi’ which ostensibly is also how Mohd. Taheruddin was known. Md. Mustafa Ahmed (PW3) is said to have replied that Taheruddin was not at home. Apprehending danger, Md. Mustafa Ahmed escaped from the house but not before Gopal Ghose had injured him with the help of a spear. On his way out Md. Mustafa Ahmed is said to have recognised two persons standing outside the house allegedly armed with dao, dagger etc. Out of the house and in the field, he saw his father Mohd. Taheruddin coming homeward. Md. Mustafa Ahmed told him not to do so for he may be killed by the mob that had attacked the house. Taheruddin paid heed to the advice and watched the incident from a distance. According to his version Rahna Gour, one of the members of the mob, shot an arrow at him which hit his right hand. After the crowd had left the place he shouted to attract the attention of an army vehicle that was passing by and reached the spot only to find his daughters Bimala and Hazera lying dead and his wife Sahera Khatoon lying injured in the middle of a paddy field near the house. He carried her home where she died after some time. Zakir Hussain who was sleeping along with Md. Hanif Ahmed (PW4) in the kitchen was also injured by the mob. According to the version of Md. Hanif Ahmed (PW4) three accused persons, namely, Kailash, Hari Singh and Ratan entered his room and took away Zakir with them. Hanif is said to have stepped out of his house to take shelter behind the banana trees growing near the house and witnessed the entire incident from there. According to his version Gopal Ghose, Kailash Gour, Gundulu Gour, Krishna Gour and Harendra Sarkar assaulted his mother while his sister Hazera Khatoon was attacked by Budhuram Timang, Hari Singh and Rahna. Bimala, the other sister, was similarly assaulted by Gopal, Ratan Das and Harendra Sarkar. The rest of the sisters, however, managed to escape unhurt.
Judgment:
In his dissenting judgment , Bedi, J. has referred to as many as five different Reports of Commissions of Enquiry set up over the past five decades or so to point out that the findings recorded in the reports submitted by the Commissions indicate an anti-minority bias among the police force in communal riot situations and investigations. Copious extracts from the reports reproduced in the judgment no doubt suggest that in situations when the police ought to protect the citizens against acts of communal violence, it has at times failed to do so giving rise to the perception that the police force as a whole is insensitive to the fears, concerns, safety and security of the minority communities. Whether these reports have been accepted by the governments concerned and if so how far have they contributed to the reform of the force is a matter with which we are not directly concerned in this case. All that we need to say is that sooner such reforms are brought the better it would be for an inclusive society like ours where every citizen regardless of his caste or creed is entitled to protection of his life, limb and property. It will indeed be a sad day for the secular credentials of this country if the perception of the minority communities about the fairness and impartiality of the police force were to be what the reports are suggestive of. And yet it may not be wholly correct to say that the police deliberately make no attempt to prevent incidents of communal violence or that efforts to protect the life and property of the minorities is invariably half hearted or that instead of assailants the victims themselves are picked up by the police. So also there is no reason for us to generalise and say that there is an attempt not to register cases against assailants and when such cases are registered loopholes are intentionally left to facilitate acquittals or that the evidence led in the Courts is deliberately distorted. No one can perhaps dispute that in certain cases such aberrations may have taken place. But we do not think that such instances are enough to denounce or condemn the entire force for ought we know that for every life lost in a violent incident the force may have saved ten, who may have but for timely intervention been similarly lost to mindless violence. Suffice it to say that while the police force may have much to be sorry about and while there is always room for improvement in terms of infusing spirit of commitment, sincerity and selfless service towards the citizens it cannot be said that the entire force stands discredited. At any rate the legal proposition formulated by Bedi J. based on the past failures do not appear to us to be the solution to the problem. We say with utmost respect to the erudition of our Brother that we do not share his view that the reports of the Commissions of Enquiry set up in the past can justify a departure from the rules of evidence or the fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system. That an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arsing from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution. So also, the quality and creditability of the evidence required to bring home the guilt of the accused cannot be different in cases where the investigation is satisfactory vis-`-vis cases in which it is not. The rules of evidence and the standards by which the same has to be evaluated also cannot be different in cases depending upon whether the case has any communal overtones or in an ordinary crime for passion, gain or avarice. The prosecution it is axiomatic, must establish its case against the accused by leading evidence that is accepted by the standards that are known to criminal jurisprudence regardless whether the crime is committed in the course of communal disturbances or otherwise. In short there can only be one set of rules and standards when it comes to trials and judgment in criminal cases unless the statute provides for any thing specially applicable to a particular case or class of cases. Beyond that we do not consider it necessary or proper to say anything. We are conscious of the fact that three innocent persons including two young children have been done to death in the incident in question which needs to be deprecated in the strongest terms but unless proved to be the perpetrators of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellants cannot be convicted and sentenced for the same. We accordingly allow this appeal and acquit the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt. They shall be set free forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.