The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that lapses in police investigation cannot be used as a sole basis for acquitting the accused if sufficient evidence exists to establish their guilt. The judgment came in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2013, which arose from a double murder case rooted in political clashes in Kerala.
The Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision convicting five individuals—A1, A2, A3, A11, and A12—while acquitting others due to lack of evidence. The appeal, filed by the convicted individuals, was dismissed by the bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, who found no merit in the arguments challenging the High Court’s findings.
Case Background
The case dates back to a political hartal on March 1, 2002, called by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), which led to violent clashes with members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]. A group of 11 RSS members, fearing a mob attack, sought refuge near the Meloor River. Late at night, a violent mob armed with deadly weapons attacked, killing Sunil and Sujeesh, while others managed to escape.
An FIR was registered the next day, implicating 15 individuals under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly), and provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The appellants argued that:
1. Delay in FIR Registration: The FIR was ante-timed and allegedly tampered with, citing inconsistencies in time entries and additions to accused names.
2. Faulty Investigation: They claimed lapses in the inquest process, recovery of weapons, and absence of credible evidence linking them to the crime.
3. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: The defense pointed to discrepancies in the statements of key witnesses to discredit the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution, represented by the State of Kerala, countered that the High Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and relied on credible witness testimonies, post-mortem findings, and recoveries to convict the appellants.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court made critical observations while rejecting the appeal:
– On Faulty Investigation: The bench cited its consistent stance that a defective investigation does not necessarily exonerate the accused. Referring to the judgment in Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar, it emphasized that courts must evaluate evidence independently of investigative lapses.
“The prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions…justice would be denied to the complainant party if mischief deliberately done is perpetuated.”
– On Witness Credibility: While acknowledging minor contradictions in witness testimonies, the Court held that they did not affect the prosecution’s case. It noted that political enmity between the accused and witnesses required their evidence to be scrutinized meticulously, but the testimonies were consistent on material facts.
– On Evidence Evaluation: The Court observed that the post-mortem reports corroborated the witnesses’ accounts, and the specific roles of the accused in the attack were clearly established.
Final Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court concluded:
“Crime creates societal fear…It is the duty of the courts to balance the interests of the accused and society. Mere contradictions or defective investigations cannot shield the guilty when corroborative evidence is strong.”
The conviction of A3 under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, for throwing a bomb was also upheld. The Court clarified that the act itself indicated unlawful intent.
