CASE ANALYSIS- PULEN PHUKAN & ORS V STATE OF ASSAM

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On the midday of 13th June 1989, maybe 13 villagers had come to the Chabua house of one Smt. Nareswari Phukan (PW-1). They allegedly surrounded her house and assaulted her brother-in-law, Robi Phukan (PW-2), inflicting injury to his head. Death would have been occasioned when three of them- Mozen Phukan, Dulen Phukan, and Haren Saikia- caused injuries to Pradip Phukan worthy of death. 
2. The FIR was filed at the same date by Smt. Nareswari Phukan; it was very brief and incomplete. She would later admit before the court that she had not read the FIR before signing it. The contents of the FIR were totally inconsistent with the Court proceedings, thus rendering the farce suspicious. 
3. Police registered a case and preferred the first charge-sheet against eight accused persons in the beginning. Later, three more accused were arrested, and two remained absconding. Eventually, 11 accused persons stood trial for different offenses under the IPC section 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly), 447 (house-trespass), 323 (hurt), 302 (murder), and 326 (grievous hurt).
4. There were seven witnesses for the prosecution, four of them were eyewitnesses, i.e., members of the deceased’s family residues of the accused were found chasing and assaulting the victims with some weapons, which caused fatal injuries.
5. PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 stated that there were some five policemen with the accused at the time of attack and that no help was rendered. PW-2 tried to follow his brother but was stopped by the accused at the police station itself. This eroded the prosecution case.
6. Postmortem on Pradip was done by Dr Naleswar Sonowal (PW-6), who found many cuts on his body. The cause of death was bleeding and shock. However, though the police stated to have found an axe and blood-stained soil at the spot of occurrence, these were never brought on record. Also, doubt was cast by the discrepancy regarding the number of accused, first named in the charge-sheet, being eight, against eleven by the time of the trial.
7. The content of the FIR was vastly different from the later testimony. PW-1 clearly stated he did not know what was in the FIR, and there was nothing in the court record to show who the scribe was or that it had any attendant signature. No injury report for the alleged victim PW-2 was there, though he was injured. These discrepancies and the absence of physical evidence made the prosecution version suspect. The police presence around the whole episode yet non-interference suggested their involvement. 

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the conviction of the accused lawful in the face of contradictory eyewitness testimonies?
2. Whether the lower courts were incorrect in accepting the untested and conflicting evidence of the witnesses?
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to finally establish the guilt of the accused?
4. Whether the unnecessary delay in the FIR and the errors in investigation sufficient to render the case of the prosecution invalid?

JUDGMENT

In a unanimous decision led by Justice Vikram Nath, with support from Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions of Pulen Phukan and three other accused individuals. The Trial Court’s life sentences, which the Gauhati High Court had upheld, were canceled by the Court.  

Key Findings-

1.PW-1 (Nareswari Phukan) and PW-2 (Robi Phukan), the two primary eyewitnesses, gave conflicting accounts of the events. PW-2 changed his story, initially naming other suspects before pointing to Pulen. In contrast, PW-1 claimed that Kuleswar and Pulen attacked with axes and iron rods. Since neither witness could clearly identify any of the eleven defendants, the statements they made under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not valid.

2. Several witnesses reported that five police officers were present during the attack but did not step in. Instead, they took the accused to the police station. Despite this situation, neither the prosecution nor the trial court addressed this troubling issue. The Court called this a “serious doubt.”

3. The Court expressed some apprehension about the prosecution’s failure to examine the person that made (recorded) the First Information Report (FIR). The Court noted that the witness PW-1 had stated that she did not read or understand the FIR prior to signing it, which raised concerns about reliability. 

4. When discussing evidence, the items collected (e.g., the axe and blood-stained soil) were presented but not admitted in evidence, so they could not be served as evidence to support the prosecution’s theory. Although there was no forensic evidence or physical evidence to connect the accused to the offence. PW-7, the investigating officer, also testified that he found discrepancies between the items collected and that were presented to the court. Furthermore, the report regarding PW-2’s injuries was also not in the hospital records.

4.Notably, the prosecution failed to prove the accused were engaged in a “common object” as per Section 149 IPC. The witnesses did not state all the accused were engaging in a common intent to kill/harm the victim. There was also no evidence of planning or coordination in any way. The court noted that “as the police officers were on the spot, it means they must have a purpose, and they could probably have the plan to catch the suspect”. If the officers did have common purpose, then it was to catch the suspect, and not murder.

5. The factual situation meant the prosecution’s case under Section 149 IPC was not legally supported. Because of significant procedural issues and a failure to investigate the conflicting testimony, the Court concluded that the prosecution could not rely on the evidence to establish any conviction.

6.The Court said that it must be noted that a prosecution cannot simply take the complainant’s version of events at face-value. Trial judges in a criminal case have an obligation to investigate and make clear any suspicious circumstances in evidence against a defendant.

7.The Court explained that the presumption of innocence and the strict burden proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that conflicting stories and missing evidence obligate the court to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

8. Operative Judgment:

“Although Pradip Phukan’s death was a homicide, we are not satisfied the prosecution has established the case against the accused appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are quashed. The appellants are released forthwith.”

REASONING

1.Variation of Testimonies of Witnesses

The court observed striking variation of testimonies between two principal witnesses, PW1 and PW2. Both testified that they saw the incidence, but differently in their testimonies. PW1, for example, testified that she saw the assault from a hill near the scene, whereas PW2 testified that he came to the scene after its occurrence. They also perceived the numbers differently and what they witnessed in the scene. Because their testimony was contradictory to one another, the credibility of the witnesses was questioned by the court. If the chief witnesses cannot provide uniform evidence, that undermines the case of the prosecution as it relies on them being credible.

2.No Physical Incriminating Evidence

The court also recommended that there was no physical incriminating evidence against the accused for the crime. There was no blood-stained clothing and no gun. Physical evidence such as fingerprints or DNA, in the event of homicide, was not presented by the prosecution. Physical evidence must be presented in the event of homicide so that the criminal can be punished and innocent people will not be wrongfully accused.

3.Delay in Filing the Incident

The second question of the court was delay in reporting the incident. The incident occurred at night, but FIR was registered on the following day. The court questioned the delay because such incidents need to be reported forthwith. The delay proves suspicion and is an indicator that the tales were not real. The judge could not make out reasonable grounds for delay and thus rejected the case. All delays except the bare minimum point towards not believing evidence.

4.Unspecified Motive

The court also added that the prosecution did not establish on what grounds the accused individual committed the crime. They had no strong evidence they had any personal intent or motive. The prosecution relied on law of group crime, but they were unable to lay out the common design of all the parties to the murder. Without clear proof of the common intent, the charge is not strong.

5.Presumption of Innocence

 The prosecution should bring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, the prosecution was unable to prove. There were no clear links between the accused and the offence. The statements given by witnesses were too weak to render a verdict. Without clear evidence, the court could not use presumption of guilt.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/84446751/?formInput=447%2C323%20ipc

Pulen Phukan & Ors v State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No 906 of 2016, SC judgment dated 28 Mar 2023

Written by Aastha Rajeev Tembe 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.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.