Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently set free a death row convict in a 2012 case of murdering his brother, sister-in-law, and their four children, stating that the prosecution failed to establish even one of the three key incriminating factors—motive, last seen, and recoveries—needed to prove his guilt.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment of January 9, 2019, and the Agra court's judgment of March 20, 2017, which held the appellant Gambhir Singh guilty in the case of "ghastly" murder of Satyabhan, Pushpa and their four children in heinous manner with blows of sharp and blunt weapons on the intervening night of May 8-9, 2012.

"Having considered the material available on record in its entirety, we find that the present one is a case involving utter lackadaisical approach on part of the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution. The investigation of a case involving gruesome murders of six innocent persons was carried out in a most casual and negligent manner," the bench said.

The Supreme Court found inherent improbabilities and infirmities in the prosecution case.

"The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend," the bench said.

It said the law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt.

In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt, the bench said citing Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984).

The prosecution claimed the appellant-accused had killed the deceased persons owing to property disputes between the brothers. It alleged both the brothers were involved in murder of their own mother. The property share of the appellant was bought by deceased brother in the name of his wife, to bear the legal expenses. When the appellant came out on bail, he insisted for the return of land, which led to the dispute and the incident, the UP counsel said.

However, going through the theory of the motive, the bench said, "We find that other than a bald aspersion made by Mahaveer Singh (the complainant, brother of deceased woman), the first informant and the brother of deceased Pushpa in his deposition, no plausible evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the story so as to establish the motive attributed to the appellant-accused."

The court pointed out that neither the particulars of the criminal case involving the murder of the mother of deceased Satyabhan and the appellant-accused were placed on record nor did the prosecution produce the documents evidencing the sale of the plot of land, owned by the appellant-accused.

"Resultantly, there is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution failed to lead even an iota of evidence to show that the appellant-accused was deprived of the plot of land owned by him so as to connect such transaction with the theory of motive," the bench said.

Court noted the remaining part of the evidence of Mahaveer Singh was conjectural and hearsay in nature. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see anything with his own eyes. He could not recollect the names of the people or villagers who told him that they had seen the appellant-accused at the crime scene, the bench pointed out.

With regard to evidence of a man who claimed he saw the accused in blood-stained clothes, the bench said, "Apparently, the evidence of this witness has been created by the prosecution for lending credence to its flimsy case, as against the appellant accused and to link him with the crime by hook or by crook. We have a strong reasons for holding so."

The witness claimed to have seen the appellant-accused, Gayatri (sister, acquitted by the trial court) 7 to 10 km from the place of the incident, and another person (minor) in the evening at about 4 to 5 o’clock whereas the murders admittedly took place much later in the night and the witness heard about the incident on the next day, noted the bench while holding, "Thus, apparently, this witness was created by the prosecution and his testimony is totally unworthy of credence. Similar evidence was given by Kedar Singh (PW-7) and his testimony also deserves to be discarded for the same reasons".

The bench said the probability of the appellant-accused traversing this long distance wearing blood-stained clothes after having committed six murders was virtually impossible and unbelievable.

"Evidently, both these witnesses, namely, Dashrath Singh (PW-6) and Kedar Singh (PW-7), are cooked-up witnesses whose testimony has been created by the prosecution to lend credence to its story in a case of blind murder," the bench said.

After making a meticulous examination of evidence of the Investigating Officer, the court also found inherent infirmities in his testimony which completely discredited the prosecution’s case regarding the so-called incriminating evidence of recovery of weapons like axe and daggers.

The recoveries allegedly made in furtherance of disclosure statements remain unproved for want of proper evidence, the bench said.

"On going through the entire examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer, we do not find anything therein to suggest that the officer, conducted any investigation whatsoever regarding the theory of motive. The evidence of the Investigating Officer is totally silent on this vital aspect of the case. At this stage, we may also refer to the fact that the High Court while deciding the appeal of the co-accused Gayatri has observed that the recoveries effected at her instance were planted and fake," the bench said.

The Investigating Officer did not examine even a single of the villagers living adjacent to the crime scene for establishing the presence of the appellant-accused at or around the crime scene, corresponding to the time of the incident, the bench said.

"No effort whatsoever was made to collect proper evidence of the motive," the bench said.

The court pointed out that the Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence whatsoever regarding the safekeeping of the recovered articles or material objects, till the same reached the Forensic Science Laboratory.

"This utter negligence in conducting the investigation has contributed significantly to the failure of the prosecution’s case as against the appellant-accused," the bench said.

The court further felt that the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial and so also the Presiding Officer of the trial Court were totally remiss while conducting the trial.

"The evidence of the material prosecution witness in a case involving gruesome murders of six persons including four innocent children was recorded in a most casual and lackadaisical manner, without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements of the Evidence Act," the bench said.

The court said even if for the sake of arguments the evidence of recovery of weapons were to be accepted, the fact remained that the FSL report did not give any indication regarding the grouping of the blood found on the weapons and hence, the recoveries were of no avail to the prosecution.

The court held the impugned judgments did not stand to scrutiny and deserved to be set aside.

"As a consequence, the conviction of the appellant-accused and death sentence handed down to him can also not be sustained," the bench said, directing release of the appellant-accused to be released from prison.

Case Title: Gambhir Singh Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh