Summary
Appeal against concurrent convictions under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC for a 1981 night-time shooting and knife attack. The Court acquitted the appellants because three of the four eyewitnesses had admittedly sworn affidavits during the bail hearing stating the appellants were not the culprits, the investigating officer never recorded their further statements or controverted the affidavits, and the prosecution suppressed this material, making it unsafe to convict on the sole surviving eyewitness.
Issues
- Whether the convictions could be sustained where three of the four eyewitnesses had earlier sworn affidavits before the Sessions Court exonerating the appellants, which the investigation neither verified nor controverted.
- Whether the failure to conduct further investigation on such affidavits, and their suppression by the prosecution, amounted to a denial of a fair investigation and fair trial under Article 21.
- Whether it was safe to convict on the testimony of the sole remaining eyewitness (the first informant), whom the injured witness's affidavit named as the assailant.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants had been convicted of murder and attempt to murder with common intention and sentenced to life imprisonment; the Court set aside those convictions because the prosecution evidence was rendered doubtful by the unfair investigation. (¶¶ 1, 26)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to a fair trial includes an obligation on the police to carry out a fair investigation whose object is to bring the real culprits to justice and ensure an innocent person is not punished; failure to investigate the eyewitnesses' exculpatory affidavits breached that obligation. (¶¶ 17, 22)
- Provisions for procuring attendance of witnesses during investigation, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The investigating officer's excuse that the witnesses could not be traced was rejected: the CrPC contains elaborate provisions for securing the presence of witnesses, and he did not explain what efforts he made to call PW-5 to PW-7 to record their further statements. (¶ 20)
Held
- Although no material contradictions or omissions were brought out in the sketchy cross-examination of the eyewitnesses PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, the accused's entitlement to a fair trial under Article 21 carries with it an obligation on the police to conduct a fair investigation aimed at bringing the real culprits to justice, and a defect in that regard goes to the root of the matter. (¶ 17)
- The investigating officer admitted in cross-examination that eyewitnesses PW-5, PW-6 and the injured PW-7 had filed affidavits in the bail proceedings stating that the appellants were not the culprits, on which the Sessions Court granted bail; once aware of them, it was his duty to record supplementary statements of those witnesses about the affidavits and their contents, and the plea that the witnesses could not be traced was a lame excuse given the CrPC machinery for procuring attendance. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- By failing to carry out further investigation on the basis of the affidavits, and by attempting to suppress them, the prosecution failed to conduct a fair investigation; this created serious doubt about the truthfulness of PW-5 to PW-7's court testimony, compounded by PW-5 having been detained at the police station for 24 hours before his statement was recorded. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- With the other eyewitnesses discredited, only PW-4's evidence survived, and the injured witness's affidavit named PW-4 himself as the assailant; in the absence of a fair investigation and with the weapons not recovered, it was unsafe to convict the appellants on PW-4's testimony alone. (¶ 23)
- The Sessions Court and the High Court erred in overlooking the cross-examination of the investigating officer and the prosecution's suppression of the affidavits, which were highly relevant aspects. (¶ 24)
- The Court reiterated its direction of 8 February 2024 that the trial court record must not be described as the 'Lower Court Record', describing any court as a lower court being against the ethos of the Constitution; High Courts must act on that direction and the Registry circular of 28 February 2024. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; the judgments of the trial court and the High Court set aside insofar as the appellants are concerned; appellants acquitted of all offences and their bail bonds cancelled.