Recent Acquittals From Supreme Court Reflect Deep Malaise In Our Criminal Trial System

"Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted" - Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai (2014)

A series of orders passed by the higher courts recently, acquitting convicts in murder cases after finding serious deficiencies in the judgments of the trial courts, call for a serious introspection about our criminal justice system.

On March 29, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted four persons who were sentenced to death in the 2008 Jaipur blasts case. The High Court also found that one among the death row prisoners was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The order passed by the division bench of the High Court is also notable for the scathing observations against the police and the trial court. It was observed that the investigation “was not only flawed but was also shoddy” and that the agency “miserably failed in the discharge of their duties”. Also, the trial court erroneously relied upon inadmissible evidence, ignored material contradictions and has also not properly considered the legal provisions. It is shuddering to imagine that if not for this intervention made by the High Court - which boldly refused to be swayed by the rhetoric of national security- four persons, including one who was a minor during the time of alleged offence, would have been hanged to death.

However, this is not a one-off incident. In the same week, the Supreme Court ordered the release of a death row prisoner after 28 years on finding that he was a 12 year old boy at the time of the offence. “The instant case reflects gross lethargic and negligent attitude of the State…”, the Court had observed in the case in 2019 while reopening the matter to ascertain the juvenility claim. In another case where juvenility claim was established at the appellate stage, the Supreme Court on March 3 ordered the release of a convict, who was sentenced to death for the rape-murder of a minor girl, after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.

On March 28, the Supreme Court also affirmed its judgment which acquitted three persons who were sentenced to death for the gang-rape and murder of a 19-year-old girl in Delhi’s Chhawla area in 2012, by dismissing the Delhi Police’s review. The original judgment passed by the Supreme Court in November 2022 had acquitted the death row convicts after noting that there were "glaring lapses" in the trial. "Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures", the judgment had stated, while pointing out several deficiencies in the evidence in the case which had attracted media sensation.

In the month of March, we could track at least a dozen of cases where the Supreme Court reversed the convictions in murder cases, overturning the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the High Court. Strikingly, many of these cases related to offences which took place 20-30 years ago. On March 28, a three judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol acquitted 4 persons in a murder case of 1989(Pulen Phukan & Ors. Versus The State Of Assam). The bench had strong reasons to suspect that the case might have been set up by the police themselves after accidentally killing the deceased in the process of arrest. The bench made a chilling remark - “It is quite possible that it was a complete set-up by the police. They having committed the murder in the process of arresting the deceased, and thereafter, knowing the enmity between the two parties, set-up a false case against the accused”. The unfortunate part is that there is no mechanism to seek accountability from the concerned police officials.

Trial Courts flouting basic principles of criminal jurisprudence

Several convictions which were ordered on the basis of circumstantial evidence were quashed by the Supreme Court. Two such cases were based on inadmissible extra-judicial confessions (Pawan Kumar Chourasia Versus State of Bihar, Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs State Of West Bengal). In Nikhil Chandra Mondal, the Court also found that the recovery alleged to have been made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was unbelievable, as there was no recorded statement of the accused and the recovery of the alleged weapon was made from an open place which was accessible to all.

In Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala vs State of Gujarat, the conviction was based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness. However, the sole eyewitness’s testimony did not inspire the confidence of the Supreme Court, as his conduct was found to be unnatural; for example, he said that after seeing his friend being shot in the middle of the road at night, he went home and slept, without bothering to take him to hospital or inform the police (the police station was only few meters away from the spot) or the family. The confessional statements of the accused and the alleged recoveries were also found to be having no nexus. While ordering the release of the accused, who was sentenced to life in 2023, the Supreme Court expressed its anguish at the trial courts flouting the “basic principles of criminal jurisprudence”.

“We may also state that the Courts must refrain from committing such grave errors in the future, whereby innocent people are made to suffer incarceration for over a period of nearly two decades, without proper appreciation of evidence", the Court added.

In another case, a man who was convicted for allegedly murdering his wife thirty five years ago was acquitted by the Supreme Court on the ground that it was based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of evidence. “Travesty of justice resulting in serious prejudice to the accused” - these were the words used by the Court to describe the “erroneous” orders passed by courts below.

Recently, on April 24, the Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, in view of blatant loopholes in the prosecution case. “...we may observe that the Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he was under…numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions”, the bench observed while also criticising the High Court for its “perfunctory manner” in which it dealt with the appeal.

Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen, who appeared in some of the above mentioned criminal appeals, said that the tampering of the records by the investigating officers is one of the main reasons for acquittal. He stated that the officers in many cases ante-date or post-date their records to conceal their delay in doing any particular act during the course of investigation. This ante dating or post dating could not be perfect since it could be found out from other records or events. He also referred to the added pressure on the part of trial court advocates.

“The mind of the advocates doing trial would get confused when the volume of evidence recorded is enormous. They do not have enough time to dissect the evidence dispassionately since they have short time at their disposal between the recording of the evidence and final arguments. But, for the Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court like us, we have enormous time for it. While we are briefed by the advocates on record, the trial court advocates are not having such help. They have the direct pressure to show positive results", Sirajudeen said.

The point to be noted is that most of these are not cases of simple acquittals on the basis of benefit of doubt, but are instances of the prosecution case totally collapsing as their foundation was found to be wholly weak due to shoddy investigation and trial. That it took the apex court to detect these lapses- some of them blatant and glaring- is another matter of concern. Several innocent persons had to spend time behind bars for decades. The more worrisome factor is that, the real culprits remain scot-free.

Directions issued in 2014 to fix liability on erring prosecutors and investigators remain ignored

In a 2014 case, while expressing anguish at the lapses in investigation leading to the acquittal of the accused in case of rape-murder of a minor girl, the Supreme Court had noted with anguish :

"He may be truly innocent, or he may have succeeded because of the lapses committed by the investigating/prosecuting teams. If he has escaped, despite being guilty, the investigating and the prosecution agencies must be deemed to have seriously messed it all up. And if the accused was wrongfully prosecuted, his suffering is unfathomable. Here also, the investigating and prosecuting agencies are blameworthy. It is therefore necessary, not to overlook even the hardship suffered by the accused, first during the trial of the case, and then at the appellate stages. An innocent person does not deserve to suffer the turmoil of a long drawn litigation, spanning over a decade, or more"

In that judgment(State of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai), a bench comprising Justices JS Khehar and CK Prasad had issued several directions to fix liability on erring investigating officers and prosecutors in cases of acquittal.

"On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for...All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action.", the Court had directed. The Court had directed the Home Departments of every State Government to formulate a procedure to implement these directions. Directions were issued that a training programme be put in place which would ensure that those who handle sensitive matters concerning investigation/prosecution are fully trained to handle the same. However, these directions, issued nine years ago, remain ignored, and the deplorable state of trial system continues, as evidenced by the acquittals at the Supreme Court stage. 

(The author can be reached at manu@livelaw.in)

List of recent acquittals from the Supreme Court :

1. Pradeep Kumar vs State of Chattisgarh, March 16, bench of Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol.

2. Narendrasingh Kesubhai Zala v State of Gujarat, March 16,  bench of Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

3. Udayakumar vs State of TN, March 16, bench of Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

4. Guna Mahto vs Jharkhand, March 16, bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol.   

5. Shankar vs State of Maharashtra, March 15, bench of Justices AS Bopanna, Ravikumar 

6. Nandlal vs State of Chattisgarh, March 14,  bench of Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath, Karol 

7. Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs State of Bihar, March 14, bench of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal  

8. Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs State, March 3, bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol

9. Munna Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh, January 24, bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta.  

10. Indrajit Das vs State of Tripura, February 28, bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol.   

11. Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand, January 17, bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha    

12. Karan & Fatiya vs State (juvenility claim found at SC level), March 3, bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol.  march 3

13. Pulen Phukan vs State of Assam , March 28, bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol.

         14. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, April 24, bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol.

         15.  Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (juvenility claim found at Supreme Court), March 27, bench of Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha        Bose   and Justice Hrishikesh Roy