Introduction:
In a legal system founded on the principles of justice and fairness, the protection of the rights of the accused is paramount. The recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd Rijwan vs. State of Haryana exemplifies this commitment. Pronounced on October 13, 2023, the judgment revolves around a murder case and raises critical questions regarding witness identification procedures. The apex court’s decision to acquit the accused underscores the significance of adhering to established legal procedures and the consequences of failing to do so.
The Background of the Case:
At the heart of this case is the appellant-accused’s conviction for offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Sessions Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for the murder charge and three years of rigorous imprisonment for the charge under Section 201. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentencing.
The Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, with two primary circumstances forming the chain of events. These crucial elements included the theory of “last seen together” and the recovery of the deceased’s body, which was pivotal in proving the accused’s guilt.
The “Last Seen Together” Theory:
One of the central elements of the prosecution’s case was the theory of “last seen together.” According to the prosecution, on February 17, 2004, the deceased and the appellant consumed alcohol together. Following their encounter, an incident occurred that led to a physical altercation, eventually resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution contended that the appellant and two others assaulted the deceased, leading to his demise. Subsequently, the prosecution claimed that the accused, along with three companions, buried the deceased’s body.
The Circumstantial Nature of the Case:
The prosecution’s case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence, with the two most crucial circumstances being the “last seen together” theory and the recovery of the deceased’s body. This approach is common in cases where direct evidence is unavailable or insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Witness Testimonies:
Two key witnesses were pivotal to the prosecution’s case: PW-6 and PW-9. Their testimonies were central to establishing the sequence of events leading to the deceased’s death. However, an examination of these testimonies raised several critical questions.
The Contradictions in the Testimonies:
PW-6 claimed that on February 17, 2004, around 4 p.m., the appellant-accused arrived at his shop on a black motorcycle, accompanied by the deceased. They had both consumed alcohol, and the accused had struck his motorcycle into PW-6’s feet. In response to PW-6’s cries for help, a few individuals, including Hari Chand Sharma, came to the scene and resolved the matter. The appellant then paid PW-6 Rs. 50 for medical expenses.
However, upon scrutiny of PW-6’s testimony, several important facts emerged:
a) PW-6 had no prior knowledge of the appellant before the incident.
b) Before April 9, 2004, he could only recognize the appellant by appearance.
c) In his statement given to the police, he provided only the physical characteristics of the appellant.
d) During cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that no test identification parade was conducted, and he was called to the office of the Superintendent of Police on April 9, 2004, where he was shown the appellant.
PW-9’s testimony introduced a different perspective. He claimed that on February 17, 2004, he was at the site where the appellant worked from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. At that time, the appellant was also present at the site. PW-9 stated that the appellant demanded a bottle of liquor, which he provided, along with Rs. 2000. This testimony was crucial because it contradicted the timeline presented by PW-6.
The Significance of the Missing Witness:
One critical aspect of the case was the absence of an eyewitness, Hari Chand Sharma, who was allegedly present when the appellant and the deceased were “last seen together.” His testimony was vital to supporting the “last seen together” theory. However, the prosecution did not provide any explanation for the failure to examine this crucial witness.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on the irregular witness identification procedure and the doubts it raised regarding the credibility of the identification. The court emphasized that while the failure to conduct a test identification parade is not always fatal, its necessity depends on the facts of each case.
In this particular case, the significant irregularity was that instead of conducting a test identification parade, PW-6 was called to the office of the Superintendent of Police, where he was shown the appellant. This process raised reasonable doubts about the identification’s reliability, as it was not a recognized legal procedure. Furthermore, the court highlighted the failure to examine Hari Chand Sharma as a crucial witness.
As a result, the pivotal circumstance of “last seen together” remained unproven, undermining the prosecution’s case.
The Supreme Court’s Decision:
Based on the analysis, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was acquitted of the alleged offenses, and the court canceled the appellant’s bail bonds.
Implications and Significance of the Judgment:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd Rijwan vs. State of Haryana underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in criminal cases. Notably, the court found the irregular witness identification procedure to be a significant factor in raising reasonable doubts about the appellant’s guilt.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to legal protocols to safeguard the rights of the accused. The decision also illustrates the court’s commitment to ensuring that justice prevails, even in circumstantial cases. In such cases, where direct evidence is limited, the court emphasizes the need for scrupulous adherence to legal procedures.
Conclusion:
The recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohd Rijwan vs. State of Haryana exemplifies the court’s dedication to the principles of justice and fairness. Irregular witness identification procedures were not tolerated, and the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the accused. This landmark judgment reminds us of the critical importance of following established legal procedures and upholding the rights of the accused to maintain a just and equitable legal system.
Author Bio
