The top court emphasised that the prosecution’s job is not to accept the complainant’s version as gospel truth and the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the truth.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol noted: “It is still a mystery as to how the investigating officer in his statement has stated that he had filed a charge- heet against eight accused as five were absconding and there is no further statement regarding three more accused being arrested and put to trial… how the trial court proceeded to convict 11 accused and only two were set to be absconding.”
Justice Nath, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, noted that the evidence in the case creates a very serious doubt on the entire prosecution story and it is quite possible that the police personnel were there to arrest the Pradip Phukan and his brother and in that process, some resistance may have resulted into the incident causing his death.
“Even the scribe of the FIR has not been produced nor the signatures have been proved. It is quite possible that it was a complete set-up by the police. They (police) having committed the murder in the process of arresting the deceased, and thereafter, knowing the enmity between the two parties, set-up a false case against the accused,” Justice Nath said.
The bench said no explanation has come forward to explain the presence of the police personnel of Chabua police station throughout the incident.
Justice Nath said: “The job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as gospel truth and proceed in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the truth.”
The bench further added that the entire version of the prosecution witnesses that the police personnel accompanied the accused and were standing outside the house of the deceased creates a serious doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution story.
It said if the investigation is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the trial court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion.
The top court judgment came on an appeal challenging a 2015 Gauhati High Court judgment affirming the conviction and life sentence of the accused by the trial court. The trial court and high court convicted 11 accused under various sections, however, only four of the convicts moved the apex court.
The bench noted that the informant and the three eye-witness had categorically stated that police officials had accompanied the accused-appellants to the house of the deceased and they were present throughout the incident.
Acquitting the four men, the bench said: “we are of the view that although the death of Pradip Phukan was homicidal but we are not convinced that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. The appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants are set at liberty forthwith.”
(IANS)
