Patna High Court acquits two in 1996 killings, orders review of serious investigation lapses નોંધ

The appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, for their alleged participation in a night attack in which four persons were killed and others injured.

The first information report (FIR) named 30–40 unknown assailants; the appellants were later tried separately after being arrested years after the occurrence.

In the split-up trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses. The defence produced an earlier deposition of the injured witness, Pramod Kumar, to demonstrate material differences from his testimony at the later trial.

The trial court convicted both appellants.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were among the assailants, given the delayed dock identification, absence of a test identification parade, and the circumstances of the occurrence.

2. Whether the inconsistencies and improvements in the eyewitness accounts, together with the non-examination of material witnesses and the failure to put material incriminating evidence to the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), rendered the convictions unsafe.

3. Whether the convictions and sentences should be set aside and what further directions, if any, were warranted regarding the investigation.

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence leaves reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to its benefit.

Identification evidence must be assessed in light of the circumstances, including the conditions of visibility, the witness’s prior familiarity with the accused, and the delay before identification; the Court referred to Tamilselvan v. State, noting the difficulty of identifying persons when a torch is directed towards witnesses.

Material incriminating circumstances must be put to the accused in examination under Section 313 CrPC; the Court held that the relevant identification and attribution evidence not so put could not be relied upon against the appellants.

The Court also relied on Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the potential effect of a deficient investigation on the prosecution case, and on State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai and Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra concerning review and accountability for investigative or prosecutorial lapses after acquittals.

The appellants were not named in the FIR, and the informant said he had not identified anyone during the night; his later attribution of their identities rested on information allegedly received from the Superintendent of Police, who was not examined.

The eyewitness accounts contained material differences, and the injured witness’s later testimony named appellants whom he had not identified in his earlier deposition.

The Court also found identification in the dark, chaotic conditions and torchlight doubtful, and considered the witnesses’ conduct and omissions inconsistent with reliable identification.

The doctor and investigating officer were not examined, medical records were not proved, and the investigating officer’s evidence could have clarified the scene and how the appellants’ names emerged.

Finally, material identification and attribution evidence had not been put to the appellants under Section 313 CrPC and therefore could not be used against them.

Taken together, these deficiencies and contradictions prevented the prosecution from proving the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court further directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, to constitute a three-member committee of senior police officers to review the investigation and take appropriate administrative action within three months; the action taken was to be communicated to the appellants.

The Department of Home, Bihar, was directed to report on its policy and inquiries concerning investigative and prosecutorial lapses within one month.