Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar
Date of Judgement: March 10, 2010
Facts of the Case: Jiten Besra, the accused was said to have committed murder of one Nandlal Tudu and Mital Bala. Nandlal Tudu was the father-in-law of the accused who was the father of his wife, Malati Besra. It was contended by the prosecution that on the fateful day, Malati along with her mother had gone to attend `Boul Song’ and she was also accompanied by her sister Parbati. When they came back at dawn on 21.05.1997, they found that both her parents i.e. Nandlal and Mital Bala were dead. A written complaint was lodged by Malati wherein it was alleged that one unknown miscreant might have killed her parents out of previous enmity. The investigation ensued on the basis of F.I.R and the investigating agency came to the conclusion that it was appellant Jiten Besra who was the perpetrator of the crime. In support of it, the charge-sheet was filed and after the committal of the case to the Sessions Judge, during the trial, the prosecution examined, in all, 15 witnesses which included Malati (PW-1), PWs-2 to 13, who were persons from locality, Partha Sarathi Dhar (PW-14), the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the bodies of the deceased persons and Ram Narayan Datta (PW-15) who was the Investigating Officer. The defence of the appellant was that he was being falsely implicated and there was no evidence against him whatsoever. Since defence could not prevail the accused was convicted by the Trial Court relaying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court dismissed the appeal and the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Judgement: A glance at the High Court and the Trial Court judgments suggested that the Trial Court had relied on few circumstances as also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses such as-
(i) the presence of Jiten Besra in the village on the fateful night;
(ii) strained relationship with his parents-in-law; and
(iii) the blood found on clothes.
However, the circumstances on which the Trial Court and the High Court have relied upon were not clearly stated nor was there any discussion on one very important aspect that in case of the circumstantial evidence. I was observed that he circumstances relied upon must be proved first and should not only point towards the guilt of the accused but they should be of such nature that no other inference except the guilt of the accused, is possible thereupon. Therefore, the evidence were examined again.
The first witness Malati (PW-1) had barely stated about the strained relationship of her and her husband i.e. the accused as also between her deceased parents and the accused. This witness was the author of the F.I.R. According to her, she had seen her husband to be present after she came back and realized that her parents were done to death. She had also asserted that his clothes were blood stained at that time. Very strangely, however, in the First Information Report which she made almost immediately, she had stated that one unknown person had committed the murder of her parents. She had also admitted that the FIR was written in her house and a number of persons were present there, including the accused. The relevance of this important evidence did not seem to have been realized by the Courts below. Even as regards the so-called enmity, which is one of the circumstances held against the accused, she had admitted that she could not remember any mis-behaviour committed by the accused towards her. From her cross-examination, it was clear that in no manner there was such a fierce enmity between the accused and the deceased persons or even Malati. The evidence of Panchanan Baskey (PW-3) only asserted that the clothes of the accused were soaked in blood and the relationship between the accused and his wife and his parents-in-law were strained. To the same extent was the evidence of Binod Mandy (PW-4), Laxmi Hansda(PW-5), Sarbeswar Besra (PW-6), Balaram Baskey (PW-7) Haripada Murmu (PW-8), Jagari Tudu (PW-9), Ukil Tudu (PW-10) Khudiram Hembram (PW-11), Hapan Hembram (PW-12) and Durgacharan Hansda (PW-13). Beyond saying that the relations were strained and further that the clothes of accused were blood stained, all these witnesses had stated nothing more. None of them stated that the accused was not even on visiting terms. On the other hand, their evidence suggested that the accused was on the visiting terms. Therefore, the first circumstance of enmity relied upon by the Courts below could not have been relied upon as an incriminating circumstance at all. It may be that the accused might be having strained relationship with the wife and her parents but it is clear that he was on visiting terms with them. He was working in some other village which was hardly about 15 kms. away from their village. Under such circumstances, the Courts should have weighed the circumstance as to whether the strained relationship was of such fierce nature that the accused would go to the extent of committing murder of both the parents-in-law.
As regards the blood stains on the clothes of the accused, this circumstance was of no consequence for the simple reason that the clothes of the accused were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. That was the fact clearly admitted by PW-15, Ram Narayan Datta who was the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the origin of the so-called blood allegedly found on the clothes of the accused was not known nor was it established that it was the blood of the deceased that was allegedly found on the Lungi of the accused. This witness also admitted that initially Malati (PW-1) did not say anything against the accused person and it was only subsequently that she amended her statement and complained against the accused which statement was much later i.e. on 24.05.1997. Once it was established that the clothes of the accused or deceased persons were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was clear that nobody knew the blood group of the accused or of the deceased persons. Under such circumstances, that circumstance lost all its significance.
The last circumstance relied upon by the Courts was the presence of the accused in the house. There was no evidence collected by the prosecution that the accused alone was present in the hut. On the other hand, it had clearly come in the cross-examination of the witnesses that his parents-in-law were not alone in the hut and in fact the younger brother of Malati was also present there. This is apart from the fact that the mere presence of the accused in the village by itself cannot amount to an incriminating circumstance, particularly, when the witnesses have admitted that he was on the visiting terms with his parents-in-law. At least no witness denied that he was on the visiting terms. Thus, in this case all the alleged incriminating circumstances could not be said to have been established. Thus, the accused should have got the benefit of doubt. There was hardly any discussion regarding this aspect in the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the High Court. Those judgments, therefore, could not be sustained.
Decision: The appeal was allowed by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused and he was acquitted of all the charges.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS