Summary
The Court set aside the murder convictions of all three accused after finding the prosecution case fundamentally unreliable. Admissions by the investigating officer and key witness showed political pressure to shield the persons first named in the FIR and implicate the informant’s family. Doubtful recoveries, delayed testimony and unsupported treatment of bloodstains did not cure those defects. Because the entire prosecution story failed, Article 142 relief extended to the non-appealing co-accused. All three were ordered released forthwith unless required in another case.
Issues
- Whether the convictions could survive the evidence of a compromised investigation and unreliable supporting proof.
- Whether the non-appealing co-accused should receive the same acquittal where the prosecution case failed in its entirety.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaComplete justice required extending the benefit of the total rejection of the prosecution case to the non-appealing co-accused as well. (¶¶ 36, 37)
Held
- The investigating officer’s admissions concerning political demonstrations and superior officers’ oral instructions, corroborated by the prosecution’s key witness, showed an investigation directed at shielding the initially named suspects and implicating the informant’s family. The courts below overlooked these material admissions. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 33, 35)
- The recovery witness denied any seizure in his presence despite admitting signatures on the memoranda. Those signatures alone did not justify treating his account as corroborating recovery. The delayed recording of the key witness’s statement and the full implications of her admissions further undermined the prosecution case. (¶¶ 23, 26, 27, 33)
- There is no fixed rule that failure to match blood groups invariably defeats, or never affects, prosecution evidence. The court must be satisfied about both recovery and the human blood’s origin in the circumstances. Here the doubtful recoveries and absence of linkage to the deceased did not provide the scientific corroboration assumed by the High Court. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- The conclusions rested on rejection of the entire prosecution story, rather than a distinction between individual acts of the appealing accused. Denying identical relief to the first accused solely because he had not appealed would cause gross injustice; Article 142 justified extending relief. (¶¶ 35, 36)
- The convictions of all three accused were set aside. They were directed to be released forthwith unless detained in connection with another case. (¶ 37)
Result
Appeals allowed; convictions of all three accused, including the non-appellant, set aside and immediate release directed unless required in another case.