Back
Supreme Court Acquits Dhrub Singh in Murder Case Over Complete Lack of Reliable Evidence
New Delhi, – In a significant ruling that underscores the primacy of reliable evidence over procedural lapses, the acquitted Dhrub Singh and four other accused in a broad daylight murder case, overturning their convictions by the . The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that while a cannot automatically benefit the accused, courts cannot presume guilt merely because the Investigating Officer (IO) faced allegations of collusion.
The Incident and Trial
The prosecution case stemmed from an alleged ambush on an election day when the deceased, along with four companions—his son, an employee, a nephew, and a villager—was heading to his fields. According to the , the accused surrounded the party, opened indiscriminate fire, and shot the deceased in the back. A patrolling car with a Magistrate arrived, prompting the accused to flee. The victim was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead.
The trial court convicted all six accused under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 ( ) of the , along with specific convictions under Sections 147, 148 of the IPC and . The High Court upheld these convictions, relying heavily on the testimony of three eyewitnesses—all relatives or employees of the deceased—and citing a complaint against the IO alleging a .
Exposed
The Supreme Court found the investigation to be so deficient that it amounted to “no investigation having been carried out.” Critical evidence was missing: no cartridges were recovered from the scene despite claims of indiscriminate firing; the bullet that killed the deceased and exited his body was not traced; no weapons were seized; and blood-stained earth collected from the spot was never sent for chemical analysis.
The Court also noted a disturbing procedural anomaly: the was conducted before the was recorded, which the bench described as “pre-meditated.” The IO, examined as PW9, admitted that the scene of occurrence was a clear pathway, contradicting the prosecution's suggestion that the terrain prevented cartridge recovery.
Medical Evidence vs. Eyewitness Testimony
The medical expert, PW4, testified that the deceased had two lacerated wounds—an entry and an exit wound—indicating the bullet passed through the body. The nature of the wound suggested the victim was in a sitting position when shot from behind at close range (three to four feet). This directly contradicted the eyewitness version that the deceased was walking in a line when ambushed. The High Court had brushed aside this inconsistency with the conjecture that a shooter's hand might shake, but the Supreme Court found this reasoning unsustainable.
The eyewitnesses themselves were inconsistent: PW1 and PW2 said A5 ordered the firing and A7 shot the deceased, while PW7 (the son) claimed A4 shot the victim. None of the eyewitnesses suffered any injury despite the alleged indiscriminate firing, raising doubts about their presence. Moreover, their blood-stained clothes, which would have been present if they carried the victim, were never seized.
Motive: Weak and Unsubstantiated
The prosecution's motive was equally unconvincing. It alleged that a girl (sister of A3) from the accused's village was kidnapped by a boy from the deceased's village, and that the deceased refused to help the ex-Mukhiya (father of A1) trace the couple. Another motive claimed the deceased's nephew contested elections against the ex-Mukhiya. The Court noted that the ex-Mukhiya was not even arrayed as an accused, and no evidence linked the kidnapping to the deceased.
Legal Principle: ≠ Guilt
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the bench, clarified the legal position:
“A cannot inure to the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence, merely because the I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused.”
The Court emphasized that the High Court “egregiously erred” in relying on a complaint against the IO that was not even produced during trial to fill the gaps in the prosecution case.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the culpability of the accused . The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and the accused ordered to be released forthwith if in custody. The judgment serves as a reminder that even in serious crimes like murder, the rests squarely on the prosecution, and no amount of procedural irregularity can substitute for substantive evidence.
