Summary
On rehearing after recall of its earlier judgment, the Court acquitted all six accused because unreliable identification, material contradictions and suppressed evidence left guilt unproved. It ordered compensation, further investigation concerning four other persons earlier identified by a witness, and an inquiry into culpable investigative and prosecutorial lapses.
Issues
- Whether the identification and supporting evidence proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- What relief and further directions were appropriate following the unfair investigation and prolonged incarceration.
Provisions considered
- Articles 20 and 21, Constitution of IndiaThe Court treated fair investigation and trial as constitutional requirements breached by suppression of material evidence and the failure to investigate the earlier identification of other persons. (¶¶ 10, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 11.1, 14)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaIn the peculiar circumstances, compensation of Rs 5 lakh per accused was awarded for rehabilitation after prolonged incarceration under threat of death sentences. (¶ 14)
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Further investigation was directed concerning the four persons identified in the witness’s earlier statement, whose involvement had not been investigated. (¶¶ 13, 17)
- Section 173(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The duty to forward supporting prosecution material did not relieve investigators of evaluating material favouring the accused and, where warranted, exonerating them. (¶ 10.3)
Held
- The identification evidence was unsafe on the cumulative facts: uncertain lighting, injured witnesses losing consciousness, absent descriptions, unexplained delay and defects in the parades, and material improvements in testimony. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.9)
- The forensic material did not connect the accused to the crimes, and the commonly available broken chain, with defects in its seizure and identification, supplied inadequate corroboration. (¶¶ 9.7, 9.8)
- The witness’s earlier identification of four different persons materially contradicted her later account. Suppression of that fact and the failure to investigate those persons undermined fair investigation and trial. The gravity of the crimes could not replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 10, 10.5, 10.6, 11, 11.1, 12)
- The acquittals did not dispense with investigation into the actual perpetrators. Further investigation was ordered concerning the four persons named in the earlier photographic identification. (¶¶ 13, 17)
- The State was to deposit Rs 5 lakh for each accused with the Sessions Court within four weeks, for payment on proper identification and use towards rehabilitation. This was case-specific relief under Article 142. (¶ 14)
- The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra was directed to inquire into the lapses, identify responsible officers and take departmental action against erring officers still in service, within three months. (¶¶ 15, 15.1)
Result
Accused’s appeals allowed; all six acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case. State’s enhancement appeals dismissed. Compensation, further investigation and departmental inquiry directed within the specified periods.