RABINDRA KUMAR PAL ALIAS DARA SINGH V. REPUBLIC OF INDIA, 2011

Advertisements

KEYWORDS:

CBI, SUPREME COURT, LIFE IMPRISONMENT, DEATH SENTENCE, DARA SINGH, CHRISTION MISSIONARY, GRAHAM STAINS

INTRODUCTION:

This case dates back to an incident which took place in 1999 in the state of Orissa. The Supreme Court through the judgment in this case, upheld the decision of the High Court of Orissa in finding the life imprisonment granted to the appellants in the case to be correct and it opined that the secular character of our Indian Constitution shall be uphold and any kind of crime related to religion shall be strictly punished.

The Supreme Court further opined in this case that when there are two views in a case, the one in the favour of the accused shall be upheld. There were various questions that were raised while dealing with the cancellation of life imprisonment which was dealt with by the Supreme Court. This case also included interpretation of various sections of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The appeal in the present case relates to the murder of a Christian Missionary from Australia, namely Graham Staines along with his two sons. The deceased were burnt to death by a mob of 60 – 70 people in their car in the midnight of 22^nd January, 1999.
• The deceased Graham Staines used to work among the tribal population especially among the Lepers of Orissa and used to preach and propagate Christianity. The deceased had arrived in the village of Manoharpur along with his sons and a few more people to organize certain programmes near the church. After retiring for the day, the Christian Missionary slept in his car parked near the church along with his two minor sons when the alleged mob came and set fire to the vehicle. The mob prevented the deceased from getting themselves out of the vehicle as a result of which all the three persons got burnt in the vehicle.
• The local police was informed about the incident the very next day. However, they were unable to carry out the investigation properly due to which the case was transferred to the Crime Investigation department. Ultimately, due to lack of proper investigation, the case was finally handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 3^rd May, 1999. The charge sheet was submitted by the CBI on 22^nd June, 1999.
• The District and Sessions Court after the investigation on the basis of charge sheet filed by the CBI, convicted all the accused persons and sentenced them for offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code. The punishment of death sentence was passed against Dara Singh by the common order in 2003.
• There was an appeal filed against this order in the High Court of Orissa. The High Court of Orissa by its common judgement in 2005, turned the death sentence given to Dara Singh into life imprisonment and upheld the life imprisonment given to one of the accused Mahendra Hembram and acquitted rest of the accused persons. The various appeals in Supreme Court were filed against this impugned judgement of High Court by the appellants Dara Singh, Mahendra Hembram and CBI.  

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Dara Singh and Mahendra Hembram is sustainable in the eyes of law.

OBSERVATIONS:

• The Supreme Court found through the evidences that the intention behind killing of the Christian Missionary was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity. On this very contention, the Supreme Court held that in a country like ours where discrimination on the ground of caste or religion is a taboo, taking lives of persons belonging to another caste or religion is bound to have a dangerous and reactive effect on the society at large.
• The Supreme Court further upheld the evidentiary value of all the documents, photographs and other evidences presented by the prosecution and held that the allegation by the prosecution that Dara Singh was the leader in the mob and the slogans raised in his favour show his full involvement in the crime were true and hence needed no reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court questioned the veracity of witnesses from the prosecution side and stated the fact that elderly people should have been examined rather than minors.
• On the allegation by the appellants that the witnesses have been coerced, the Supreme Court reverted back to the findings of Trial court and the High Court and held that there were several witnesses whose testimonies can’t be relied upon due to various discrepancies found in the confessional statements by the lower courts.
• On the question of acquittal of other accused persons, the SC held that where there are two views, the view in the favour of accused is given preference and hence preference  is given to the accused in case of two opinions. The SC further held that the presumption of innocence is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence and in the absence of proper material, the innocence of accused is reinforced.
• While upholding the life imprisonment granted to the two appellants, the SC mentioned that the present case was not the rarest of the rare murder case and death sentence shall be granted in rarest of the rare cases.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court in this case upheld the judgement of High Court of Orissa and reinstated the life imprisonment granted to the two appellants namely Dara Singh and Mahendra Hembram. The SC opined that though the Trial Court granted death sentence but the High Court after looking into the findings, realized that it is not the rarest of the rare cases and hence commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court further supported the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the poor tribals in absence of definite assertion from the prosecution side about their role and involvement in the crime. Hence, the SC highlighted the infirmities and weaknesses in the prosecution case and held the observations of the High Court to be correct.

The Supreme Court further highlighted in the judgement that The State shall treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual right of religion, faith and worship.

CONCLUSION:

The judgment in this case highlighted the importance of secularism in our Democracy. The SC through the judgment concluded with the hope that Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of religion playing a positive role in bringing India’s numerous religion and communities into an integrated prosperous nation be realised by way of equal respect for all religions. It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of `use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other, as stated by the Supreme Court.

REFERENCE:

1. https://scconline-cnlu.refread.com/Members/NoteView.aspx?enc=SlRYVC0wMDAwMDQ2NDY3JiYmJiY0MCYmJiYmU2VhcmNoJiYmJiZmdWxsc2NyZWVuJiYmJiZ0cnVlJiYmJiZkYXJhIHNpbmdoIGFsaWFzIHJhYmluZHJhIGt1bWFyIHBhbCYmJiYmQWxsV29yZHMmJiYmJmdTZWFyY2gmJiYmJmZhbHNl

This article is written by Tanya Raj of Chanakya National Law University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin