In a 1989 murder case, the Supreme Court found that the evidence against four people was unreliable and that the entire prosecution case could have been fabricated by the police. As a result, the four people were found not guilty.
On March 28, the Court of Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol expressed concern that the police may have accidentally killed the deceased while attempting to arrest him and, in order to cover up the incident, fabricated a case against the accused after learning of the deceased’s previous animosity toward the accused.
It said the police might have carried out the homicide during the time spent capturing the departed, and knowing the ill will between the two gatherings, set up a bogus body of evidence against the blamed.
The Apex Court noted that this also explained the presence of Chabua Police Station officers throughout the incident, including at the location where the murder was said to have occurred.
The petition by the accused, challenging their 2015 conviction and life sentence by the Gauhati High Court, was granted by the Bench.
In the case of Pradip Phukan, who was killed on June 13, 1989, 11 defendants were found guilty by both the trial court and the High Court under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons), 447 (criminal trespass), 323 (hurt), 302 (murder), and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
However, only four of the prisoners chose to appeal to the supreme court.
The nation’s highest court took note of the fact that the informant and the three eyewitnesses had vehemently stated that the accused and appellants had been accompanied by police to the house of the deceased and were present throughout the incident, including when the murder occurred.
In any case, the preliminary court neglected to get this explanation from the arraignment regarding the reason why the police staff went with the charged appellants and remained external the place of the departed to watch the blamed attack the departed and carry out his homicide.
On the off chance that the police staff were available at the hour of commission of the offense, they ought to have promptly followed up on to get the criminal apparatus under way by first securing the charged from the actual spot, instead of permitting them to move away, added the seat.
Even though he claimed to have witnessed the incident, the investigation also failed to uncover any dependable evidence regarding the deceased brother’s presence at the scene.
NAME – HARDIK SHARMA COLLEGE – IMS LAW COLLEGE, NOIDA
0 Comments