"One Of Most Perfunctory Investigation" : Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Sentenced To Death For Alleged Murder Of Wife, Four Kids

The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for alleged murder of his wife and his four kids.Without any hesitation and with disappointment, we state that the case on hand is one of most perfunctory investigation, the CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala remarked.Project 39A of the National Law University Delhi gave legal assistance to the appellant in the matter and briefed Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy who appeared for the appellant.According to the prosecution case, while the wife and four children were sleeping in the house situated at the village Basdhiya, the accused Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti clobbered all the five to death with a sharp cutting weapon called Banka. The motive behind the crime, as per the prosecution, was the extra marital affair of the accused appellant with one married lady. The death sentence imposed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court.The Trial Court had convicted him taking note of the following incriminating circumstances: (i) Discovery of weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes at the instance of the accused appellant. (ii) Extra Judicial confession of the accused appellant before two prosecution witnesses. (iii) Strong motive to commit the crime. (iv) False explanation at the instance of the accused appellant and his unnatural conduct.Reappreciating the evidence on record, the Apex Court bench observed that none of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused."Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. In Shankarlal Gyarasilal (supra), this Court cautioned "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions". This Court has held time and again that between "may be true" and "must be true" there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict", the court observed.Fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake.The bench noted that the accused in this case was provided with a legal aid counsel as he was not able to afford a good and experienced trial side lawyer to defend himself. The bench made the following observations in this regard:"What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities. While the quality of the defence or the caliber of the counsel would not militate against the guarantee to a fair trial sanctioned by Articles 21 and 22 resply of the Constitution, a threshold level of competence and due diligence in the discharge of his duties as a defence counsel would certainly be the constitutional guaranteed expectation. The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent."Appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past.Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available to the advocate chosen so that he may serve the cause of justice with all the ability at his command, and the accused also may feel confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly.. This case provides us an opportunity to remind the learned District and Sessions Judges across the country conducting sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, to appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past. It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the...

"One Of Most Perfunctory Investigation" : Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Sentenced To Death For Alleged Murder Of Wife, Four Kids

Ashok KM

Tags