Procedural Lapses and Lack of Corroborative Evidence Lead to Strengthening of Presumption of Innocence for the Accused
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of Muraif Qamar and Irshad Ali @ Deepak, who were accused of carrying explosives and arms, purportedly linked to terrorist activities. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of NCT of Delhi against the acquittal, citing procedural lapses and the absence of credible evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case, which dates back to 2006, involved allegations that the respondents were informers for the Special Cell of the Delhi Police and the Intelligence Bureau and had been wrongfully implicated after refusing to undertake a perilous mission. They were accused of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substance Act.
The High Court's judgment emphasized the double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases, stating that such a presumption should not be disturbed unless the trial court's findings are manifestly perverse or contrary to the evidence. It was noted that the trial court had acquitted the respondents due to several procedural irregularities, including the use of private vehicles in the raid without proper documentation, failure to associate independent witnesses, and the absence of corroborative evidence from the bus driver and conductor of the bus allegedly used by the accused.
The court also took into account the Closure Report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had been directed to investigate the case independently. The CBI report raised doubts about the authenticity of the police's version of events, indicating that the accused might have been kept in illegal detention and falsely implicated.
Despite the State's argument that the Special Cell's investigation was credible and that police testimony could suffice in the absence of public witnesses, the High Court found that the threshold of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. The judgment underscores the importance of stringent adherence to procedural protocols and the requirement for unimpeachable evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving severe charges such as terrorism-related activities.
The decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done, particularly when procedural lapses and investigative shortcomings are evident.
Bottom line:-
Acquittal upheld in absence of unimpeachable evidence and credible investigation; presumption of innocence further strengthened due to procedural lapses and contradictions in the prosecution's case.
Statutory provision(s): Section 378 CrPC, Section 114(e) Indian Evidence Act, Section 120B IPC, Sections 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act, Sections 4 and 5 Explosive Substance Act
State of NCT of Delhi v. Muraif Qamar, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2909019
