CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION  VS SHYAM BIHARI

FACTS OF THE CASE 

❖ The matter relates to a person (Rajkumar balyan) killed while he  was travelling with his group on a scooter. It was alleged that on  their way, they noticed three policemen, (named:-Anil Kumar,  

Shyam Bihari and Arshad Ali) standing on the road who flashed a  torch light on them, due to which, the riders lost control of their  scooters, skidded and fell. 

❖ One of the policemen exhorted to shoot to kill, shots fired hit the  deceased who collapsed on the spot, while the other two persons  managed to escape to the village. Police and villagers arrived at  the crime scene and the deceased was rushed to the hospital who  had already succumbed to his injuries on the way and an FIR was  lodged.

❖ And at the same time the report of robbery was lodged due to which  there was an alert in that village. 

❖ The Trial Court and High Court pointed that the prosecution case  rested on three eyewitnesses, two of whom could not identify the  policemen and the third one was not found reliable, and the  medical evidence that the gunshot injuries caused by a rifle bullet  but a .12 bore weapon which was not recovered from any of the  accused persons. 

ISSUES 

• whether three policemen were charged for murder or not?

• whether the evidence plays evitable role in the case? ARGUMENTS 

▪ Appellant:-. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  this is a case where it was proved beyond doubt that the deceased  was shot by persons who were wearing police uniform. On the  night of the incident, the three accused, namely, Shyam Bihari, Anil Kumar Sharma and Arshad Ali, all armed constables, were  patrolling the area, as per evidence brought on record. 

▪ Respondent:-they submitted that they thought that those people  were robbers, that’s why they shot him. 

JUDGEMENT 

➢ The Trial Court found PW-3 and PW-6’s testimonies  

inconsequential as they did not identify the Accused policemen  involved in the crime. Eye-witness Shyam Singh (PW15) was  deemed unreliable due to delayed disclosure and similar affidavits  sent to the police. 

➢ The State filed a time-barred appeal with a delay condonation  Application and an Application for leave to appeal, but the High  Court rejected the Application and dismissed the Appeal. The High  Court observed that the Prosecution’s case relied on three  eyewitnesses, but PW-3 and PW-6 couldn’t identify the  policemen, and PW-15 was deemed unreliable. Medical evidence  showed the deceased died from a .12-bore weapon, not the  Accused’s rifle, making the appeal futile.

➢ Based on the reasons stated above, the Hon’ble Court sees no  reason to interfere with the High Court’s Order, and as remitting  the matter for rewriting the judgment would be futile. Therefore,  the Appeal is dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the Courts’ thorough examination of the evidence and  circumstances in this case has reaffirmed the principle of “innocent  until proven guilty.” Despite the Prosecution’s reliance on eyewitness  testimonies and proven circumstances, they failed to establish a  conclusive chain of evidence linking the Accused to the crime beyond a  reasonable doubt. The credibility issues surrounding a key eyewitness  and the absence of concrete evidence connecting the Accused to the  alleged crime were pivotal factors in upholding the acquittal verdict.  This decision highlights the significance of a fair and meticulous judicial  process, where doubts are resolved in favour of the Accused.  Ultimately, the dismissal of the appeal emphasizes the importance of  upholding justice through the proper application of the law and the  preservation of the rule of law. 

REFERENCES 

✓ https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-order-of acquittal-of-three-policemen-in-murder-case-as-prosecution-fails to-prove-guilt/ 

✓ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/07/19/conviction based-circumstantial-evidence-vouch-commitment-accused supreme-court/

Written by Tanya an intern under legal vidhiya

Admin