CASE ANALYSIS – CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) v. SHYAM BIHARI, 2023

Spread the love

Post Views: 98

Citation	SCC ONLINE SC 844
Date	July 17, 2023
Court Name	The Supreme Court of India
Appellant	Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)
Respondent	Shyam Bihari & ors.
Case Type	Criminal Appeal
Judges	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case of C.B.I. vs. Shyam Bihari & Ors. stems from an incident that occurred late in the evening on June 24, 1987, in the Muzaffarnagar district of the then-state of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand), in which Raj Kumar Baliyan was allegedly shot dead under suspicious circumstances by on-duty police personnel.

According to the initial version of events, as claimed in Pramod Kumar Tyagi’s (PW-6) First Information Report (FIR), he, Sudeep (PW-3) and the deceased, Raj Kumar, were on their way to Meerapur for a marriage ceremony. PW-3 and PW-6 were riding one scooter and the deceased was on another. Around 9:30 p.m., they came upon three police officers waiting on the road near Bhatoda. One of them was holding a torch, while the other two were supposedly brandishing firearms. The unexpected glare from the torchlight allegedly caused both scooters to lose balance and skid, knocking the riders off. It is then stated that one of the police officers issued a loud instruction to “shoot to kill,” which resulted in firing. Raj Kumar Baliyan was shot and collapsed on the spot, sustaining fatal injuries. PW-3 and PW-6 fled to a nearby village, then returned with other residents and police. Raj Kumar was taken to the hospital, but he died from his injuries while on the way. PW-6 then filed a FIR at P.S. Sikhera under Case Crime No. 48/87.

Contrary to this version, another account came the next day from Mahendra Singh, a local villager who filed a second FIR, resulting in Case Crime No. 48A/87. According to this version, the police and villagers were conducting joint patrols in response to a previous heist in the region in May 1987, which ended in a fatality. Due to those ongoing threats, both villagers and police were keeping a night watch. On the night of June 24, around the same time, they were notified that 5-6 thieves riding motorcycles and scooters were about to enter the community.

Based on this information, police set up a watch near the turn. When the scooters neared, torch lights were used to stop them. One of the scooter riders allegedly opened fire on the group, prompting retaliatory fire from police and residents. During the exchange, one of the participants was apprehended and beaten by villagers, later identified as Raj Kumar. Despite being taken to the hospital right away, he passed away from his wounds.
The case was first assigned to CB-CID and subsequently moved to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to the conflicting versions. The CBI launched a new investigation and opened a new case, eventually filing a chargesheet against three police constables Anil Kumar, Shyam Bihari, and Arshad Ali under Section 302 along with Section 34 IPC, claiming that the accused committed intentional murder while carrying out a common intention.

During the trial, the prosecution presented 33 witnesses, including the primary eyewitnesses (PW-3, PW-6, PW-15), and submitted numerous pieces of documentary and forensic evidence, including the general diary entries, site plan, seizure memos, ballistic and forensic reports, and the autopsy report. The deceased died from a gunshot wound caused by a 0.12 bore weapon, which was not issued to the accused policemen. Following the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused were interrogated under Section 313 CrPC, where they rejected all accusations, claimed innocence, and claimed that they were being falsely implicated for activities made while doing their official duties.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Whether the prosecution was able to determine the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through reliable eyewitness and forensic evidence?
Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence provided by the defence proved complete and sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302/34 IPC?
Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies and lack of direct evidence?
Whether the prosecution defined a clear motive on part of the accused for intentionally killing the deceased?

JUDGEMENT:

In CBI vs. Shyam Bihari & Ors., the Supreme Court maintained the acquittal of three police officers charged with Raj Kumar Baliyan’s murder in 1987. The trial court previously determined that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendants were the actual perpetrators of the crime. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the entire case was based on three witnesses who were ultimately judged untrustworthy. Importantly, the medical evidence proved that the dead was shot with a 0.12 bore bullet, while the accused police officers were armed with service rifles. Although cartridge shells from military weapons were discovered at the site, they were insufficient to establish that the fatal shot was fired by any of the defendants. The Supreme Court also noted that, while the High Court’s decision was brief, it alone could not be used to invalidate it, especially given that the matter had been pending for more than three decades.

Justice Manoj Misra remarked, “The circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that it was the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, the trial court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.” The Court also questioned the prosecution’s hypothesis, questioning why the police officers would use a country-made pistol rather than their official rifles if the purpose was to kill. The Court also voiced serious concerns about the prosecution’s premise of purposeful murder. It deemed it unlikely that trained police officers, if they actually planned to kill, would choose an untraceable, country-made pistol over their officially provided firearms. The accused’s actions, rather than fleeing the scene, remained present when the ambulance arrived and escorted the deceased person to the hospital, casting further doubt on the hypothesis of premeditated murder. The Court ruled that the conduct was inconsistent with that associated with individuals presumed guilty.

The Court further emphasized that criminal culpability cannot be based on suspicion, emotion, or public pressure, but must be shown by objective, trustworthy, and convincing evidence. In this case, the prosecution failed to eliminate reasonable doubt, and the resulting shortcomings in the evidence, ranging from the lack of identification by eyewitnesses to contradictory forensic reports and the possibility of an alternate version of events which collectively failed to meet the rigorous standard required for a criminal conviction.

Finally, in the absence of any credible motive, a lack of consistent and trustworthy eyewitness testimony, conflicting ballistic evidence, and a failure to establish a complete and coherent chain of circumstances, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court’s view was not only plausible but also legally sound. The Court determined that no interference was necessary with the acquittal and consequently dismissed the appeal, supporting the norm that criminal convictions must be based on substantial, unimpeachable evidence rather than supposition or suspicion.

REASONING:

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the direct and circumstantial evidence presented throughout the trial. In its comprehensive reasoning, the Court noted numerous key flaws in the prosecution’s case before ruling that the accused’s guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The main points of the Court’s reasoning include:

Eyewitness Testimony Weaknesses: PW-3 and PW-6, who were present at the scene, were unable to clearly identify the accused during the trial. Their testimony did not provide clear or consistent descriptions of the shooters, nor did it establish a definite relationship to the specific accused. The lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) reduced the evidentiary value of their statements.
Unreliable Testimony of PW-15: PW-15 claimed that he had witnessed the incident and identified the accused, but his credibility was severely questioned. He made delayed disclosures, eventually coming forward years later. His affidavit and that of his son utilized the same language, implying external influence or coaching. His version of events was inconsistent and contradictory over time. The Court found his testimony suspicious and untrustworthy.
Ballistic Evidence Inconclusive: Some cartridges did match the accused’s weapons, but not all of them. Importantly, the fatal shot was fired using a.12-bore firearm that was not allocated to any of the defendants, who were all wearing service rifles. This disparity suggested the potential of third-party involvement or a distinct sequence of events.
Absence of Motive: The prosecution failed to prove any reason for the police officers to intentionally shoot and kill the dead. The Court deemed it unlikely that armed police officers in uniform would prefer to employ a handgun (as per the forensic evidence) over their service rifles, especially in public.
Lack of a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the law demands a complete and unbroken chain of events that point only to the accused’s guilt. In this example, the chain was fractured, with missing connections, alternate alternatives, and questionable identification.
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof: The Court underlined that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the whole burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. When evidence raises doubt, the accused are entitled to an acquittal. The Court underscored that every reasonable doubt, no matter how minor, must work in favour of the accused, as the presumption of innocence is a foundational principle of a fair criminal justice system. If the prosecution is unable to rule out all alternative options and demonstrate a clear, cohesive chain linking the accused to the crime, an acquittal is not only justified, but legally required.

REFRENCES:

Written by Abinas Kaur Gill, an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.