The Supreme Courtroom held that the prosecution was not in a position to set up guilt ‘past affordable doubt’, therefore the appellants are entitled to ‘good thing about doubt’ and thus put aside judgement of the Excessive Courtroom which had upheld their conviction for a homicide that occurred in 1989.
The Hon’ble Courtroom was listening to an enchantment filed in opposition to the judgement of Gauhati Excessive Courtroom which had confirmed the conviction order of the Trial Courtroom whereby 11 individuals have been convicted for homicide. 4 out of the 11 convicted individuals filed an enchantment within the Apex Courtroom.
The prosecution offered the details that, the day the complainant filed the FIR i.e. June 6, 1989, on the identical day at midday 13 villagers entered their home, cordoned her off her home, induced grievous harm to her brother in regulation (Robi Phukan) and dedicated homicide of Pradip Phukan. The police got here later, made crucial enquiries, accomplished all formalities, despatched the physique for submit mortem and finally filed chargesheet in Might, 1991.
The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and proved requisite paperwork.
Details raised by appellants
The appellants raised the factors that the prosecution didn’t contact that truth in regards to the sketchy FIR; three of the witnesses have affirmed that police was current on the time of the incident and in the event that they have been current why was the incident reported by the complainant and never the police personnels themselves; regardless that there have been atleast 5 police personnels current why did they let the accused absconded; no proof has been given to ascertain widespread object required for illegal meeting; statements given by the primary informant is a greater model of the FIR.
Evaluation by the Courtroom
The three judges bench of the Supreme Courtroom presided by Justice Vikram Nath, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol, analysed all of the proof offered earlier than them and concluded numerous points.
- That the prosecution shouldn’t settle for the complainant’s model because the ‘Gospel Fact’ and blindly proceed in that route. There ought to be a good and clear investigation to extract out the reality.
- The Trial Courtroom also needs to rigorously scrutinise the proof and the place ever potential ought to make additional inquiry if the circumstances create doubt and the investigation seems to be unfair or tainted. If the Trial Courtroom fails to train its energy then it can’t be mentioned to be a good trial and the judgement is claimed to be vitiated. The Courtroom seen the truth that the Trial Courtroom even after acknowledging the truth that police personnels had accompanied the accused, didn’t get clarification from the prosecution.
- The Courtroom additionally acknowledged the truth that testimony by the primary informant seems to be a tutored one, because the assertion given on report and the FIR are materially totally different.
- Relating to the competition of illegal meeting the Courtroom held that the prosecution has not been in a position to set up proof of ‘widespread object’ and thus discarded the conviction made below Part 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
- That the whole prosecution story creates some critical doubts. It’s fairly potential that the police accompanied the accused to arrest the deceased and his brother and within the course of some incident could have resulted within the loss of life of the deceased.
- The Courtroom went on to look at, “ It’s fairly potential that it was an entire set-up by the police. They having dedicated the homicide within the technique of arresting the deceased, and thereafter, realizing the enmity between the 2 events, set-up a false case in opposition to the accused.”
The Supreme Courtroom put aside conviction and sentence of the 4 appellants and held that regardless that the loss of life of the Pradip Phukan seems to be homicidal however the prosecution has failed to ascertain his case past affordable doubt and therefore the accused are entitled to be acquitted on the bottom of good thing about doubt.
Case Title: Pulen Phukan & Ors. Versus The State Of Assam (2023 LiveLaw SC)