Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Doubtful Prosecution: Pulen Phukan & Ors. vs. State of Assam (28 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023
Citation: [Not provided in the document]
Judges: B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Can a conviction be upheld when the prosecution’s case is riddled with inconsistencies and the presence of police personnel at the crime scene raises serious questions about the fairness of the investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to significant doubts about the prosecution’s narrative. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting concerns about the investigation and the credibility of the witnesses. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol concurring.

Case Background

On June 13, 1989, Smt. Nareswari Phukan (PW1) filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Chabua Police Station, Dibrugarh, stating that thirteen individuals from her village had surrounded her house and grievously injured her brother-in-law, Robi Phukan (PW2), with sharp weapons. The FIR further alleged that Mozen Phukan, Dulen Phukan, and Haren Saikia murdered Pradip Phukan by assaulting him with sharp cutting weapons. The police initiated an investigation, collected evidence, and submitted a charge sheet against eight accused on May 3, 1991. Five accused remained absconding. Eventually, three more accused were arrested and sent for trial. The trial court convicted 11 accused under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 302, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Gauhati High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. Four of the convicted accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted 11 accused under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 302, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and six months for the other offenses. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, four of the convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 141: Defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object to overawe by criminal force, resist the execution of any law, commit mischief or trespass, or compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit what he is legally entitled to do.
• Section 147: Prescribes the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148: Prescribes the punishment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149: States that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.
• Section 447: Prescribes the punishment for criminal trespass.
• Section 323: Prescribes the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 302: Prescribes the punishment for murder.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The prosecution’s version is not fair and honest due to a sketchy FIR, improvements in the first informant’s statement, and the unexplained presence of police personnel at the scene.
• The presence of police personnel throughout the incident, who did not apprehend the accused, raises doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
• There is no evidence to establish that all the accused had a common object, making the invocation of Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, untenable.
• Material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses (PW1 to PW4), who are also interested parties (relatives of the deceased), discredit their reliability.
• The police falsely implicated the accused, as the police were present during the incident, the FIR was written by an unexamined individual, and the first informant was unaware of the FIR’s contents.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Assam):

• Both the Trial Court and the High Court have recorded concurrent findings of conviction based on the material evidence, which should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants was that the police were present throughout the incident, and this was not explained by the prosecution, which made the entire case doubtful.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has come forward with a fair and honest version of the case.
2. Whether the ingredients of Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are made out.
3. Whether the testimonies of the eye-witnesses are reliable.
4. Whether the accused were falsely implicated by the police.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment did not cite any previous cases or books.

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 141, 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections define unlawful assembly, rioting, rioting with deadly weapons, the liability of members of an unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, voluntarily causing hurt, and murder, respectively.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court analysed the provisions of Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and found that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly.
• The Court did not find the accused guilty of rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 due to lack of evidence.
• The Court did not find the accused guilty of rioting while armed with deadly weapons under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 due to lack of evidence.
• The Court did not find the accused guilty under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the prosecution failed to prove common object.
• The Court did not find the accused guilty under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 due to lack of evidence.
• The Court did not find the accused guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 due to lack of evidence.
• The Court did not find the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 due to lack of evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the significant doubts cast on the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Doubtful Prosecution Story: The presence of police personnel at the scene of the crime throughout the incident, accompanying the accused, and not intervening, raised serious questions about the fairness of the investigation. The Court noted that the police should have apprehended the accused immediately instead of allowing them to go to the police station while assaulting the injured.
• Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies: The Court found material inconsistencies in the statements of the eye-witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4). For example, the FIR did not mention the role of Kuleswar and Pulen Phukan in the assault, which was later introduced in their trial statements. The Court also noted that the witnesses’ accounts of the sequence of events were contradictory and unreliable.
• Lack of Evidence for Unlawful Assembly: The prosecution failed to establish that all the accused shared a common object, which is necessary for invoking Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court noted that the witnesses only named a few accused persons and did not state that they all had a common intention to commit murder.
• Doubts on the Place of Occurrence: The prosecution did not provide any material evidence, such as blood-stained earth, to establish the exact place of occurrence. The Court also noted that the axe, which was allegedly used in the assault, was not produced in court.
• Unexplained Scribe of FIR: The scribe of the FIR was not examined, and the first informant stated that she was unaware of the contents of the FIR, raising doubts about the authenticity of the report.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered that the prosecution’s story was doubtful due to the presence of police personnel at the scene of the crime, that there were inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and that the prosecution failed to establish the common object for unlawful assembly. The Court also found that the place of occurrence was not established, and that the scribe of the FIR was not examined. The Court rejected the prosecution’s version of the incident and acquitted the accused.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated, “From the above analysis, 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 Court also noted, “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.” The Court further observed, “It is quite possible that the police personnel of the concerned Police Station were there to arrest the deceased and his brother and in that process some resistance may have resulted into the incident causing the death of Pradip Phukan.”

There were no majority and minority opinions in this case. The bench consisted of three judges, and all three judges agreed with the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• The presence of police personnel at the scene of a crime without a clear explanation can raise serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation.
• Inconsistencies in witness testimonies, especially when witnesses are interested parties, can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The prosecution must establish all the necessary elements of an offense, including the common object of an unlawful assembly, beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The failure to produce material evidence, such as weapons or blood-stained earth, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The Court emphasized that the duty of the prosecution is to investigate in a fair and transparent manner and ascertain the truth.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the failure to establish a common object for unlawful assembly. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must present a clear and credible case, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. There was a change in the previous position of law as the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, overturning the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pulen Phukan & Ors. vs. State of Assam highlights the importance of a fair and transparent investigation and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court acquitted the accused due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly the unexplained presence of police personnel at the scene of the crime and the unreliable nature of the witness testimonies. This case serves as a reminder that the justice system must protect the rights of the accused and ensure that convictions are based on solid evidence, not mere suspicion.