Investigation Lapses and Unreliable Evidence Lead to Supreme Court Upholding High Court’s Decision
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of a son and daughter-in-law accused of murdering the son’s parents by setting their home ablaze. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, highlighted significant lapses in the investigation and unreliable dying declarations as the primary reasons for affirming the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused.
The case centered around the tragic death of a couple whose house was gutted by fire in November 2016. Initially, the trial court had convicted the accused, but the High Court overturned this decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized the importance of credible evidence and the necessity of adhering to procedural protocols in criminal investigations.
The judgment pointed out several critical errors in the investigation process, including the failure to conduct a forensic examination of the crime scene, delay in FIR registration, and the absence of independent witnesses. The Supreme Court found that the dying declarations made by the deceased were inconsistent and failed to inspire confidence, further undermined by the lack of medical certification regarding the declarants' mental state at the time.
The court also criticized the prosecution’s reliance on evidence that appeared manufactured and the improper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment reiterated the principle that in criminal trials, proof must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in delivering the judgment, noted the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation, cautioning against framing cases based on public perceptions or personal biases. The verdict serves as a stark reminder of the critical role that procedural diligence plays in ensuring justice, especially in cases involving severe allegations like parricide.
The Supreme Court’s decision brings to a close a case that had drawn significant public attention and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and due process.
Bottom Line:
Investigation lapses, unreliable dying declarations, lack of corroborative evidence, and improper examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. resulted in acquittal affirmation by the Supreme Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313
Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864478
