The court criticised the “overzealous” police investigation and held that convictions cannot be based on inadmissible statements or assumptions.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has acquitted six people accused of murder, expressing deep disappointment over the way the case was handled and the number of witnesses who turned hostile.
The case, related to the 2011 murder of a man named Ramkrishna in Karnataka, remained unsolved as the majority of witnesses, including the victim’s own son, retracted their statements during the trial.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict in 2015 TCS Employee Rape and Murder Case
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the verdict on Friday, setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s order dated September 27, 2023, which had convicted the six accused. The High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision, which had acquitted them earlier.
Delivering the judgment, Justice K Vinod Chandran, who wrote the 49-page verdict on behalf of the bench, stated:
“With a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed, we acquit the accused, reversing the judgment of the high court and restoring that of the trial court.”
The court was clearly upset over how poorly the investigation and trial were conducted.
The judges strongly criticised the investigation and prosecution, saying:
“Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses.”
The bench also highlighted the shocking fact that even the victim’s son, who saw his father being killed, failed to identify the attackers:
“Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants.”
While the High Court had relied on the testimonies of the police and official witnesses, the Supreme Court ruled that such evidence was not legally sufficient to convict the accused.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Acquits Man In 1997 Murder Case
The top court observed:
“We cannot but say that the high court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available.”
After going through all the evidence and testimonies, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had completely failed to prove the case:
“More so all the witnesses had turned hostile during the trial.”
The court further said that no conviction can be based merely on the statements of investigating officers, especially when they rely on statements that are legally inadmissible:
“Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the investigating officers which is founded only on Section 161 CrPC statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former violative of Section 162 of the CrPC and the latter in breach of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.”
The court ordered that the six accused should be released if they are not required in any other case, and made an important point about the nature of criminal trials:
“Truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect, and in the event of it being circumstantial, providing a chain of circumstances with connecting links leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and only the guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for any hypothesis of innocence.”
In a strong message to the judiciary, the court said that even though it understands the frustration of the High Court, judges must always follow the law:
“That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence.”
Background
The case involved a dispute between two brothers, which allegedly led to the murder of Ramkrishna, who had previously worked for one brother but later switched to work for the other. On April 28, 2011, when Ramkrishna was taking a walk with his son, he was allegedly attacked and killed by his former employer and six others, as per the police’s version of events.
ALSO READ: [Forgery Case] “Court Acquits Jagadish Tytler, Abhishek Verma”: Defence lawyer
However, due to poor investigation, witnesses turning hostile, and lack of solid evidence, the Supreme Court had no choice but to acquit the accused, underlining that criminal justice cannot be based on assumptions, moral beliefs, or faulty investigations.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
