9 Years Behind Bars For A Case With No Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits 6 In 25-Year-Old Bihar Murder Case, Says Eyewitnesses Unreliable

New Delhi: After nearly 25 years, the Supreme Court has brought closure to a protracted criminal case by acquitting 6 men who had been convicted of murder. In the case, one of the accused had already spent close to 9 years behind bars serving a life sentence.

In a severe indictment of the probe, the Apex Court observed that there was no dependable evidence to sustain the prosecution's case and came down heavily on the manner in which the investigation was carried out. The Top Court called it a case of 'no investigation', holding that the depositions of eyewitnesses were wholly unreliable.

The Supreme Court, setting aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Patna High Court, acquitted all 6 accused persons, noting that suspicion or feeble evidence could never form the basis for a conviction.

Senior Advocates Dr Rajiv Nanda, Manish Kumar Vikkey, AOR, and Loveleen Kaithwas, who represented 4 accused persons, said, “The judgment is a strong reminder that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion or weak evidence. We are grateful that justice has finally prevailed.”

Advocate Loveleen Kaithwas said, “This was a 25-year-long legal battle. The Supreme Court has given justice to the accused and also pointed out serious lapses in the investigation. This judgment is a victory for truth and justice.”

The lawyer stated that the case dates back to 2001, when 6 persons were accused of opening indiscriminate fire to kill a man in broad daylight. The Bihar police had successfully proved the case before the trial court and the Patna High Court, which in 2015 upheld the life term awarded by the trial court. Although one convict served the sentence, the remaining 5 had challenged the High Court verdict before the Supreme Court.

Acquitting the 6 persons, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran observed, "There is complete lack of evidence in the present case, and testimonies (of eyewitnesses) do not inspire confidence."

The bench’s remark that “the case is not of a faulty investigation but of no investigation having been carried out” points to a possible lack of judiciousness on the part of the trial court and the High Court in separating grain from the chaff while appreciating evidence. The Supreme Court underlined that otherwise, it is incomprehensible as to how the complete lack of evidence had escaped the scrutiny of 2 judicial tiers.

Faulty Probe Cannot Override Absence of Proof

The court clarified that while a defective probe cannot be taken advantage of by the accused, conviction is impossible in the absence of credible material. Justices Pardiwala and Chandran said that it was aware that a faulty investigation cannot be taken advantage of by the accused but added, "When there is no reliable evidence, merely because the IO was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the court cannot presume the guilt of the accused."

The court further stated, "We are unable to find the prosecution having established the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As we noticed, the eye-witness testimony does not inspire confidence, and there are no recoveries made or seizures effected as would have been done in a proper investigation."

The prosecution’s theory on motive was termed as sticky, and an expert medical opinion contradicted the eyewitness version of the incident. There was no recovery of weapons or cartridges from the scene of the crime, despite claims of indiscriminate firing.

Disbelieving the eyewitness account that the assailants came from behind and fired indiscriminately at the victim, who was walking, the bench said, "Expert evidence that there was an indication from the nature of the wound that the victim was sitting and that the firing was made from close quarters persuades us to disbelieve the eyewitness testimony."