CASE TITLE –
PULEN PHUKAN & ORS vs STATE OF ASSAM
DATE OF ORDER-
28th March, 2023
BENCH-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol.
PARTIES-
Appellant: PULEN PHUKAN & ORS
Respondent: STATE OF ASSAM
SUBJECT- Responsibility of Prosecution is to investigate fairly for establishing the supremacy of truth and justice. The trail court needs to be vigilant when they examine evidence and material facts of the case.
OVERVIEW
- The case begins from a FIR filed by a lady named Smt. Nareswari Phukan where she states that 13 persons came to her house without any reason and caused injuries to her brother in-law Robi Phukan and causing death to Pradip Phukan.
- Police did investigation and chargesheet was made against eight accused and the rest five were absconding. Later three accused were also arrested but two remained absconding. Seven prime witnesses were involved out of which four were eye-witness.
- 11 accused were tried under the sec 147,148,149.302,326,34 of IPC by the trial court. The accused pleaded non-guilty and filed an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the evidences led by the prosecution were unquestionable and the conviction and sentence was rightly made.
- Four out of 11 convicted filed an appeal to the SC against their conviction and sentence.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPLLEANT
- The counsel of the appellant raised finger primarily on the nature of FIR. It was contended that FIR was scripted and sketchy. There was material difference between the words of PW 1(Nareswari Phukan) in the FIR and trial court. Apart from this, there was also material inconsistency in the evidence of eye-witnesses of PW 1 and PW 2. Also, it was stated by her that she did not know about content of the FIR and was asked to sign at a given place.
- The eye witnesses who are also the prime witnesses of the case said that the accused came along with police personnel who were at least five in number. The police personnel remained outside the house till the offence took place. There is absolutely no justification given for their presence.
- The major point that was contended was whether the accused shared common object with regard to the offence.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The prosecution contended that the investigation was duly done and submitted. The trial court as well as the High Court have scrutinized the evidences and have agreed to the conviction and sentence given to the accused.
- Hence the appeal doesn’t need to be entertained by the Supreme Court.
JUDGEMENT
- The judgement of the court emphasized on the fairness of Prosecution and constitutional responsibility of the courts to duly adjudicate the matters by focusing on every aspect of the case. The presence of five police personnel at the crime scene is a big question which was not paid by the trial court and high court. Also, that the police personnel standing outside the house of the deceased, took the accused to the police station after the offence took place creates doubt on the prosecution.
- The court raised two possibilities for the death of deceased and presence of police. First, it may be that the police went to arrest the deceased and his brother as they had some sort of criminal history during which they had a rift which lead to death of deceased. Secondly, it was the police who caused death to the deceased and knowing that the deceased and accused shared animosity , the police fabricated a story to separate itself white- handedly. This may be reason why there was no justification of the presence of five police personnel outside the house of deceased.
- Further, court said that there was no evidence if common object of the people who came to the house. This is understood from the fact that there was no synchronization and planning among them. Secondly the material differences in the statement of the eye witnesses also establishes that the offence had no planning as such. It was also observed that no evidence was found of any among the 13 people persuaded others to assault deceased. Court said that they find themselves unable to hold that there was unlawful assembly. Also conviction under sec 149 IPC cannot be upheld.
- Court raised serious questions on the trial of the three accused who were absconding but later arrested by the police and how the trial convicted 11 accused but left only two accused.
- Deep scrutiny of the evidences which were presented in the court along with the original evidences, court held that the death of Pradip Phuken was homicidal. But the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the accused due to which the accused get the nefit of doubt. Consequently, Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused.
CONCLUSION
This recent judgement has highlighted the importance of evidence as well as the technical points involved in any case. The Courts bear the responsibility to establish the supremacy of truth and law in the country. The case highlights that police might set-up a story after murdering the deceased and put it in the shelf if animosity between two people so that the case looks real and possible.
