Patna High Court Acquits 13 In Jehanabad Mass Killing Case; Directs DGP To Map Acquittals To Identify Probe Lapses

The Patna HC has acquitted 13 accused persons in a 1996 mass killing case, finding that the prosecution failed to establish their identity as the perpetrators despite the occurrence itself being proved. The Court also directed the Bihar DGP to constitute a committee to examine the investigation and ordered the State to develop a mechanism for reviewing acquittal cases, identifying investigation and prosecution lapses and incorporating lessons from such cases into police training.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish was hearing a batch of criminal appeals challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2023 and order of sentence dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial Case No. 65 of 1998 arising out of Karpi P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996.

The appellants had been convicted for murder with common intention, attempt to murder with common intention, rioting and offences under the Arms Act. They had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, besides separate sentences for the other offences, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case arose from an incident on the night of 08.09.1996 at an irrigation reservoir near village Kayal. The informant and several others were keeping watch over the reservoir from a hut when, according to the prosecution, 30-40 armed persons arrived there claiming to belong to a political organisation and opened fire.

Four persons: Manger Singh, Bharat Singh, Ram Niwas Singh and Nawlesh Singh were killed, while others, including Pramod Kumar, suffered firearm injuries. The assailants allegedly fled after the incident. The FIR was initially registered against 30-40 unknown persons described as Majdoor Kisan Sangram Parishad extremists. Following investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against 24 accused persons.

The principal issue before the High Court was the identification of the accused. The Court noted that the informant had not named any accused in his initial fardbeyan or re-statement. Although he claimed that he had seen some of the assailants in torchlight and could identify them, the Court found problems with the source of his subsequent identification. A statement allegedly made by another person, Binda Yadav, was relied upon, but that statement was never brought on record during trial and the circumstances in which it was recorded were unclear.

The Court also found it significant that one of the witnesses identified an accused for the first time in court eight years after the occurrence, despite apparently not knowing him earlier. The investigating officers had not conducted a Test Identification Parade. The Bench described this as a “vital lapse” on the part of the investigating officer.

The Court further examined the circumstances in which the witnesses claimed to have identified the assailants. The prosecution witnesses stated that the assailants had flashed a torch inside the hut. The Court observed that if the torch was flashed towards the witnesses, it would cause partial blindness and would make identification particularly difficult, especially where the witnesses did not know the accused beforehand.

The Bench held that while failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade does not make an in-court identification inadmissible, its probative value must be assessed. A first-time identification in court after eight years, without corroboration, had minimal probative value and was unsafe to rely upon as a matter of prudence.

The Court further found that the prosecution had not properly put the alleged circumstances of identification to the accused in their statements under Section 313 CrPC. The accused were not specifically confronted with the allegation that they had entered the hut, flashed the torch and were identified in that light, nor were they properly confronted with the allegation regarding their association with the alleged organisation. The Court held that procedural integrity had consequently not been maintained.

The Bench emphasised that a defective investigation does not, by itself, entitle an accused to acquittal. However, in the present case, the investigative lapses assumed significance because there was no independent and credible evidence inspiring confidence on the crucial question of identity. The Bench therefore discarded the dock identification of the accused.

Ultimately, the Court held that there was no doubt that the occurrence had taken place and that four persons had been killed. However, the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellants before the Court were the perpetrators. The Court observed:

“Occurrence is true, but involvement of these appellants could not be established beyond all reasonable doubts.”

The Bench further invoked the principle that while several guilty persons may escape, an innocent person cannot be convicted merely because a serious crime has occurred. The Court then made broader observations on investigative and prosecutorial failures. It observed that the case represented an “unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night” and found that, owing to the “complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency”, a proper and fair investigation had not taken place. The Court said that the administration appeared to have remained inactive and grossly negligent and had failed to abide by its own instructions and guidelines concerning criminal investigation.

Importantly, the Bench directed that acquittals should be systematically reviewed rather than simply treated as the end of individual criminal cases. It directed the Home Department of the State to examine all orders of acquittal and record the reasons for the failure of each prosecution case. A Standing Committee comprising senior police and prosecution officers should undertake this exercise and identify mistakes committed during investigation and/or prosecution.

The Court further directed that the findings from this exercise should be incorporated into training programmes for junior investigating and prosecuting officers as well as refresher programmes for senior officers. Judgments demonstrating glaring investigative or prosecutorial lapses should also be included as training material, with the course content reviewed annually in light of new investigative tools, subsequent judgments and experience from failed prosecutions.

The Court also directed that, whenever a criminal case culminates in acquittal, the investigating and prosecuting officials responsible for the failure should be identified and a finding recorded as to whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Where negligence or culpable lapses were found, the Court directed that appropriate departmental action should follow. Depending on the culpability, an officer could also be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities temporarily or permanently.

In the present case, the Bench specifically directed the DGP, Bihar, to constitute a three-member committee of senior police officers of repute to examine how the investigation had been conducted by the investigating officer, who himself had not been examined during trial, and to take an appropriate administrative decision based on the committee's report within three months.

The Court also called upon the Home Department, Bihar, to inform it about its existing policy for reviewing cases where the High Court has identified investigation or prosecution lapses, including the number of cases in which inquiries had been instituted and their results.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the 13 appellants were acquitted.

Appearance:

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 545 of 2023For the Appellants: Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate; Ms. Meena Singh, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Addl. PP

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 574 of 2023For the Appellant: Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate; Ms. Meena Singh, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl. PP

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 581 of 2023For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Addl. PP

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2023For the Appellants: Mr. Fanish Kumar Rai, Advocate; Mr. Anshul Aaryan, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Singh, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Addl. PP

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 614 of 2023For the Appellants: Mr. Fanish Kumar Rai, Advocate; Mr. Anshul Aaryan, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Singh, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Addl. PP

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 616 of 2023For the Appellants: Mr. Fanish Kumar Rai, Advocate; Mr. Anshul Aaryan, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Singh, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Addl. PP.