In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted seven individuals previously convicted in the 1985 murder of Neelam, highlighting the need for corroborating evidence when relying on post-mortem reports and reaffirming the high threshold required to overturn acquittals. The two-judge bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside both the trial court’s conviction and the Patna High Court’s judgment, which had reversed the acquittal of two accused, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
Neelam, the wife of Ashok Kumar, was allegedly abducted and murdered on August 30, 1985, in Simaltalla, Bihar. The case, rooted in a property dispute between Neelam’s family and the accused, centered on the abduction, which the prosecution argued was motivated by a desire to forcefully take possession of her late father’s property. Neelam was reportedly taken from her home by seven individuals, including Vijay Singh, Ram Nandan Singh, and Krishna Nandan Singh, among others.
The trial court, in 1992, convicted five of the accused under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and acquitted two others. However, in 2015, the Patna High Court overturned the acquittal of the remaining two, convicting them as well.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, scrutinized several aspects of the case, with a particular emphasis on the handling of evidence and the standard for overturning acquittals.
On the Post-Mortem Report: The bench stressed that while a post-mortem report may provide valuable insights into the cause of death, it is not conclusive and must be corroborated with other forms of evidence, particularly in cases reliant on circumstantial facts. In this case, the post-mortem report suggested Neelam’s death occurred around 5:00 PM on August 30, 1985, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that she was abducted and killed around 10:00 PM the same day. The court held that without credible eyewitness testimony or other strong evidence to confirm the sequence of events, the post-mortem alone could not sustain the charges of abduction and murder.
Reversing Acquittal Requires Higher Threshold: A major factor in the Supreme Court’s decision was the Patna High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s acquittal of two of the accused, Vijay Singh and Tanik Singh. The bench underscored the principle that overturning an acquittal requires a higher threshold, as the presumption of innocence is reinforced when a trial court has acquitted the accused.
“The view taken by the trial court must be completely unsustainable and not merely an alternate possibility. The High Court, in this case, failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings and did not satisfactorily explain why the testimony of key witnesses, which the trial court had found unreliable, should now be accepted,” the judgment noted.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for selectively relying on the testimonies of certain witnesses while discarding others without a consistent rationale. For instance, the testimony of PW5 was excluded, but the testimonies of PW2 and PW4, who were similarly placed, were accepted without sufficient reasoning.
Unreliable Witness Testimony
The bench pointed out inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, particularly those of PW18 (the informant), who was Neelam’s brother-in-law, and other family members. The Court found their presence at the scene of the crime dubious and raised concerns about why natural witnesses, such as neighbours or other occupants of the house, were not called to testify.
Moreover, the Court noted that there were critical discrepancies in the informant’s statements. He initially claimed that he was threatened with a pistol by the accused, yet this crucial detail was absent from the First Information Report (FIR) and only surfaced during his testimony in court.
Lack of Corroborative Evidence
The Court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to produce solid corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime. Items like clothes found near Neelam’s body, allegedly taken during the abduction, were described by the Court as “implausible,” raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
In addition, the Court observed that the prosecution could not conclusively prove that Neelam was residing in the house from which she was supposedly abducted. Despite multiple tenants living in the same property, no independent witnesses came forward to confirm her presence there.
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of all seven accused was ordered, and they were directed to be released immediately.
