Read Time: 06 minutes
"This is a case where the appellant is so poor that he could not afford to engage a lawyer even in the sessions court. After his repeated requests to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, the service of an advocate was provided as amicus. In cases of such nature, the responsibility of the Court becomes more onerous", states the Court.
A Bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice A.S Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the Supreme Court, has set aside the conviction and penalty of a person who was convicted and granted death penalty by the Sessions Court, and which was upheld by the High Court. The alleged offence was of rape and murder of a minor child.
The Court was of the opinion,
"We cannot shy away from the fact that it is ghastly case of rape and murder of a 6 year old child. By no conducting the investigation properly, the prosecution had done injustice to the family of the victim. By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant. Court cannot make someone a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime".
And further noted that, "this is a case where the appellant is so poor that he could not afford to engage a lawyer even in the sessions court. After his repeated requests to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, the service of an advocate was provided as amicus. In cases of such nature, the responsibility of the Court becomes more onerous.
In the petition it was alleged that the appellant took his 6 year old niece with him under the pretext of showing dance and song performances on the occasion of the Holi Festival. When the girl did not return home, a search was conducted, upon which her body was found from a sugarcane field, from where he was claimed to be last seen according to a witness. Therefore, on the basis of the last seen theory and circumstantial evidence, the appellant was charged for raping and murdering the minor.
The Top Court noted that there were serious contradictions in (i) the mode of Lodging of the FIR; (ii) the place where the dead body was first seen by the police, persons took the body from the place of occurrence and where it was taken to; (iii) the Place, Date and Time of conduct of the inquest; and (iv) the clothes on the body of the victim, recovered by the police.
Bench further stated that the 'Sessions Court and the High Court have trivialised these major contradictions' to hold that the chain of circumstances have been established unbroken. The Bench took note of Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and its non-compliance in the investigation, it opined, “But in cases where the victim is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence, medical evidence assumes great importance. The failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
CASE TITLE: Chotkau vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Please Login or Register
