Above: The police often manufacture false theories in order to close a case and wrongly implicate people from vulnerable sections of society/Photo: UNI
In a recent case, the Supreme Court acquitted three of the four persons who had been convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death, citing lack of adequate evidence
By Sumit Saxena
The Supreme Court recently ruled that conviction for murder cannot be awarded merely on the basis of eye-witnesses providing a graphic and vivid description of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed. The four appellants, belonging to a nomadic community in Karnataka, had been convicted for the gruesome murder of a man and two children in 2009 and sentenced to death by subordinate courts in the state. Acquitting three of them, the apex court ripped apart the police case which relied solely on the description of the commission of the offence by eyewitnesses.
The bench noted that an impression had been created by the police based on the allegations by the key witness in the case (a daily wage labourer) that the four accused persons had committed the murder. This impression was then carried into the Test Identification Parade which was held subsequently.
Could this Supreme Court judgment nip the trend of false implication? Some legal experts are of the view that the police, in order to close a case, tend to manufacture false theories. And people from the lowest strata of society who have limited access to resources often face the brunt of such police negligence.
Srinivas, the complainant, was working as a coolie on the land belonging to one Sharanappa Gouda, which was adjacent to the land of his elder brother, Basavarajappa, in Shivapur village of Yadgiri district, Karnataka. Srinivas told the police that Basannagouda, a relative of Basavarajappa, was working as a supervisor and his two sons, Shivareddy and Srinivasreddy, were employed as coolies on the land of Sharanappa.
On February 14, 2009, at around 11 pm, Srinivas informed the police of the murder of Basannagouda, Shivareddy, and Srinivasreddy. Surykanthamma, the mother of the two children, was grievously injured in the attack on her family in their house. Based on Srinivas’s complaint, an FIR was lodged against unknown persons. Srinivas also informed the police that he had heard three or four people talking in Telugu around the house at the time of the incident. Recuperating in a hospital, Surykanthamma identified Palya (who belongs to the nomadic tribe, Chikgarikara) from the photographs of suspects shown to her by the police as one of the accused. On the basis of her identification, the police concluded that the other accused too would be from the same tribe and that the motive of the crime was dacoity.
The police asked Srinivas to provide graphic details of the accused, and sketches were prepared accordingly. Later, the police nabbed Basavaraj, Yankappa, and Ramesh from an area inhabited by some tribes near the location of the crime. The police recovered an axe, knives, jewellery and some cash from them, claimed to have been looted during the course of the incident. This discovery was significant as a forensic examination had confirmed that the cause of death was haemorrhage possibly caused due to injuries inflicted on vital organs by a knife and axe. However, the police could not satisfactorily establish the manner in which recovery was made from the accused.
During the trial, the subordinate courts had even recorded that the assailants were unknown persons and there was no known motive for the crime. However, the prosecution had informed the courts that during interrogation, the accused had confessed to the commission of the crime. The trial court had ruled that on the basis of the entire evidence available on record, it was established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the four accused persons, and sentenced them to death. This order was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court. The accused had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order.
The Supreme Court said that the eyewitnesses, Srinivas and Surykanthamma, had given a graphic and vivid description of the manner in which the crime was committed by the accused persons but that was insufficient as proof of identification. The bench also took cognisance of the fact that the Test Identification Parade was held 27 days after the arrests of the accused. It added that although the lower courts had discounted the delay on the ground of procedural formalities, the prosecution had failed to establish to the satisfaction of the court that “the eyewitnesses had correctly identified the accused”. The bench said this requirement was very crucial as the accused and the eyewitnesses were not known to each other from before.
The Karnataka government’s counsel requested the Court to consider the plight of the mother who had witnessed the horrific murder of her children. The CJI directed the state counsel not to pursue the Court with misplaced sympathies, as conviction could not be based on perceptions. The CJI said that proof of identification is not open to any compromise; there must be strong corroborative evidence in the absence of motive. The Court said the police theory regarding the recovery of an axe and knives from the accused could not be relied upon to enforce a conviction.
The Court said the police had recorded the evidence of the mother in the hospital, she was apparently asked to identify the accused from some photographs; and she could only identify one out of the four accused, Palya. The Court said that, given her trauma, it was necessary to carefully scrutinise her evidence to confirm the identification of the accused. “We are of the view that it would be safer if some more corroborative evidence on the point of identification is available on record. No such evidence is forthcoming,” noted the bench.
The Court said the prosecution is duty bound to show how the recovery of the articles was made in order for the evidence to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but no such evidence was forthcoming. On January 23, the Court set aside the death penalty awarded to all the accused persons other than Palya, whose sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Advocate SN Bhat, counsel for the accused, said: “This case is an example of the age-old malady afflicting our police and its methods of investigation. It appears that police have not taken to scientific methods of investigation even though many sophisticated tools are available. In this case, for instance, the police did not pick up any evidence from the crime scene to connect the accused to the crime like fingerprints or any other telltale pieces of evidence. The police first constructed a hypothesis that the crime was the handiwork of a tribe and went looking for the suspects from that vulnerable section of society.”
Ajay Pandey, professor of law at OP Jindal Global University, told India Legal: “Fabrication of facts and false framing of innocents cannot have any place in a fair criminal justice system. The role of the police should be to protect and promote truth for the criminal justice system to work well and win confidence of people. To this effect, as a society, we need to work to ensure urgent and effective police reforms. The judicial system must look into police misadventure in fabrication and ensure adequate consequences for wrongdoers. These aspects should also form a part of police training and sensitisation.”
Legal experts claimed it appears that, in this case, the focus of the investigation was to first determine the suspects and then procure evidence in support of their culpability. “This case once again exposes the fragility of the life and personal liberties of our citizens, particularly those belonging to the lower strata of society,” said Bhat.