In a significant ruling, the Meghalaya High Court has acquitted Shri Thombor Shadap, who was previously convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Judge of East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat. The judgment, delivered on August 16, 2024, by Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh, overturned the lower court’s conviction, raising substantial doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence and the delay in recording witness testimonies.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on December 29, 2011, when Smti Rimeki Paslein reported that her husband, Shri Shawas Phyrngap, was beaten to death at Briwar Elaka Nongkhlieh. The complaint led to the registration of an FIR under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC at the Saipung Police Station. The investigation identified Thombor Shadap and Nidamon Chullet as suspects, leading to their arrest. Shadap was later convicted by the Sessions Court in March 2023 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of โน10,000, with the option for the deceased’s family to claim compensation from the State.
Legal Issues Involved
The appeal raised several critical legal issues:
1. Credibility of Witness Testimonies: The appellant’s counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, argued that the key eyewitnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) only identified the accused after a significant delay of over two months, which cast doubt on the reliability of their testimonies. The counsel highlighted inconsistencies in their statements and questioned the absence of a Test Identification Parade.
2. Delay in Filing FIR and Recording Statements: The defense pointed out that there was a two-day delay in lodging the FIR and a further two-month delay in recording witness statements, undermining the prosecution’s case.
3. Lack of Motive: The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the murder, which is crucial in cases based largely on circumstantial evidence.
4. Non-Examination of Seized Items: The defense argued that critical evidence, such as the torchlight allegedly used by P.W.1 to identify the accused, was never seized or examined.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Meghalaya High Court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked crucial evidence to substantiate the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted:
– The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was unreliable due to the long delay in recording their statements and the contradictions in their depositions.
– The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive, which is essential in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
– The absence of a Test Identification Parade further weakened the prosecution’s case, especially given the dubious credibility of the eyewitnesses.
In its judgment, the court observed, “In the absence of motive and intention, which are essential ingredients in a murder case punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment could have been brought within the ambit of Section 300 IPC, a culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”
Also Read
Based on these findings, the court set aside the lower court’s conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The court ordered that Shadap be released immediately unless required in any other case and that any fine paid be refunded.
