Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of evidence: Pulen Phukan vs. State of Assam (28 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 305

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Karol, J. The judgment was authored by Vikram Nath, J.

Can a murder conviction be upheld when the prosecution’s evidence is inconsistent and the presence of police at the scene raises doubts about the investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to significant inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and transparent investigation and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment highlights the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring justice and protecting individual liberties. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on 13 June 1989, by Smt. Nareswari Phukan (PW1) at the Chabua Police Station in Dibrugarh, Assam. According to the FIR, thirteen residents of the village came to her house, cordoned it off, and grievously injured her brother-in-law, Robi Phukan (PW2), with sharp weapons. Furthermore, three of the accused, namely, Mozen Phukan, Dulen Phukan, and Haren Saikia, allegedly murdered Pradip Phukan by assaulting him with sharp cutting weapons. The police registered the case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 302, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 3rd May 1991, against eight accused. Five accused were absconding. Later, 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. However, only four of the convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, i.e., the Sessions Judge at Dibrugarh, 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 other sentences for the remaining offences. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the 11 convicted accused, upholding the Trial Court’s judgment. Four of the convicted accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 141, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 law, commit mischief or criminal trespass, or deprive a person of their rights.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Prescribes the punishment for rioting, which is an offence committed by an unlawful assembly.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: States that if an offence 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 offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Prescribes the punishment for murder.

These provisions are intended to maintain public order and ensure that individuals who participate in unlawful assemblies that commit crimes are held accountable. The concept of “common object” is central to these provisions, requiring that members of an unlawful assembly share a common intention to commit the offence.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The prosecution’s version is not fair or honest. The FIR is sketchy, and the first informant’s statement in court is an improvement from the FIR version.
• The presence of police personnel at the scene throughout the incident is unexplained. The police did not apprehend the accused, instead accompanying them to the police station.
• There is no evidence that all the accused had a common object to commit the offence, making Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, inapplicable.
• There are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW1-PW4), discrediting their reliability. Their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are also inconsistent with their court testimonies.
• The case is a false implication by the police, who were present throughout the incident but did not act to stop it. The FIR was written by a person whose evidence was not recorded or produced. The first informant stated she did not know the contents of the FIR.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• Both the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently found the accused guilty based on the evidence, and this finding should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues the Court addressed were:

1. Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder.
2. Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were reliable and consistent.
3. Whether the presence of the police personnel at the scene of the crime created a doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or books. However, it extensively discusses the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly Sections 141, 147, 148, 149, and 302, to analyze whether the elements of unlawful assembly and murder were established. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused shared a common object, a crucial element for conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Court also considered the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically Section 161 regarding witness statements to the police, Section 173(2) regarding the investigation report, and Section 313 regarding the accused’s statements.
• The Court noted the absence of any recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by several factors that cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies, the unexplained presence and inaction of the police, and the lack of evidence supporting the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need for a fair and transparent investigation and the prosecution’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court’s reasoning followed a clear logical path:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the police were present to arrest the deceased and his brother, and that the incident resulted from resistance during the arrest. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a credible explanation for the police’s presence and inaction, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The prosecution failed to establish that all the accused had a common object to commit murder.
• The eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable.
• The presence of police personnel at the scene throughout the incident was unexplained and created a serious doubt about the prosecution’s story.
• The prosecution did not produce the scribe of the FIR or the injury report of PW-2.
• The prosecution did not prove the place of occurrence by producing blood-stained earth or the weapon used in the crime.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “If the police personnel were present at the time of commission of the offence, they should have immediately acted upon to set the criminal machinery in motion by first apprehending the accused from the spot itself rather than allowing them to get way by accompanying the police to the Police Station while continuing to assault the injured (PW-2) on the way.”
• “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 appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. All three judges concurred with the final judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The presence of police at a crime scene without proper explanation can raise serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
• Inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The concept of common object is crucial for establishing guilt under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• A fair and transparent investigation is essential for a just outcome.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, as they were in judicial custody, if not wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any serious doubts or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version must be resolved in favor of the accused. This judgment reinforces the importance of a fair and transparent investigation and the need for the prosecution to present a credible case. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment reiterates the existing legal principles regarding the burden of proof and the rights of the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused in Pulen Phukan vs. State of Assam underscores the critical importance of a fair and transparent investigation and the prosecution’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and doubts, particularly regarding the presence of police at the scene and the lack of evidence of a common object among the accused. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice and protecting individual liberties.