"Real Culprits Are Still At Large": Kerala High Court Orders Reinvestigation In Bengali Migrant Murder Case

A Division Bench on Monday invoking its plenary powers under Article 226 directed for a re-investigation of the murder of a migrant worker after finding that the previous investigation was a farce to incarcerate a fellow migrant worker. Appellant Sanjay Oraon challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Court convicting and sentencing him for causing the death of his friend Hafijul Mohammed. Both the accused and the deceased hail from the Jalpaiguri District in West Bengal, and were employees at a furniture and woodcraft industry. The prosecution had proceeded against the accused on the ground of last seen together theory, motive behind the incident, and recovery of his pants with deceased's blood group to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances. State Brief Adv P. P. Padmalayan, while appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the entire investigation was tainted to protect the actual culprits and to falsely implicate the accused a poor migrant labourer. The appellant put forth several arguments to prove the defective investigation. To start with, motive alleged was flimsy and not proved. It was also argued that the Sub Inspector of Police on getting information about the crime did not visit the spot. Moreover, there was inordinate delay in registering the FIR. Additionally, the Prosecution failed to prove the connecting links in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. On these ground, the appeal prayed that the conviction and sentence passed against the accused be declared illegal and unsustainable and be set aside. Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice M.R. Anitha while allowing the appeal, agreed with the appellant that the "entire investigation was a farce". The following reasons for cited for coming to this conclusion: Improbable Explanation For Delay in lodging FIR In the present matter, there was a delay of 6 hours in lodging the FIS . The Court observed that although mere delay in lodging the FIS is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, the fact that FIR was lodged belatedly is a relevant factor which the court must take notice. The explanation given by the prosecution for this delay was found to be fraught with improbabilities according to the Bench. "The delay in lodging the FIS strikes us as a glaring inconsistency, and definitely the delay is inordinate and fatal to the prosecution case," the Court observed. Motive Alleged is Unproven and Flimsy The Division bench also observed that the motive behind the incident alleged is extremely feeble, flimsy and not proved. Although the prosecution has cited petty quarrels among the accused and the deceased, these are normal in any friendship, and definitely cannot be the motive for murder. While agreeing that there should be a lot more to establish a motive for murder, it was held thus: "It is quite unlikely that such fatal injuries would be caused by a close friend, that too for such flimsy reasons. We are of the view that the motive projected by the prosecution is quite unbelievable and imaginary and hence cannot be accepted as sufficient to be treated as a circumstance to bring home the guilt of the accused." No Evidentiary Value Attributable to Recovery of Appellant's Pants The prosecution had produced before the Court a pair of pants containing blood group of the deceased claiming to be belonging to the accused. It was submitted that this was recovered from the rubber estate of the owner near the toilet used by the workers, which is an open place. Although discovery from open place is not a reason to discard the evidence, the crucial question is whether they were planted there by someone. During examination, the accused answered was that it was not the one worn by him on that date. In such circumstances, he should have been given an opportunity to explain the presence of human blood. Accordingly, the Court held that "In the absence of the same no reliance can be placed on that circumstance. Blood of the accused was also not sent for examination for determination of group. In the above circumstances no evidentiary value can be attributed to recovery of pants of accused" Facts Do Not Support The Claim Of Last Seen Theory The Division Bench admitted that the 'last seen together' theory is not always reliable and the time gap has to be tested on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present matter, according to witness depositions deposed, the accused and deceased were seen at the hall room at 3.00 p.m. But the deceased was found dead at 5.45 p.m., and prosecution acknowledges that the accused was not present in the hall room then. The Court also noted a finding that the material witnesses were all employees at the industry, and that there is a possibility of concerted attempt being made to frame the accused with the murder. Moreover, the exact time of death was...

"Real Culprits Are Still At Large": Kerala High Court Orders Reinvestigation In Bengali Migrant Murder Case

Hannah M Varghese

Tags