Murder Case| Terrible Investigation By Prosecution's Probe Agency: Delhi HC Grants ₹50k Compensation To Acquitted Grandmother & Father Of 2-Yr-Old
The Delhi High Court in a murder case has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each to two acquitted accused comprising the grandmother and father of 2-year-old deceased child. It said that there was a terrible investigation by the probe agency of the prosecution.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by the State against the judgment passed by the Trial Court whereby the aforesaid accused persons were acquitted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “… the settled position of law, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in various decisions, is that the culprit may not be permitted to escape and innocent may not be roped and punished. The present case is a classic example of terrible investigation at the hands of investigating agency of the prosecution, where despite lacking material substance against the respondents/accused, the prosecution floated the trial. The unfair investigation has made the accused suffer the ordeal of long trial and undergo the sentence for the crime which was never committed by them.”
The Bench cautioned the prosecution agencies to carry out investigation in a prudent manner and said that it expects that the trial courts shall judiciously assess the material placed on record so that no innocent has to bear the torment of incarceration.
Additional Public Prosecutor Shubhi Gupta appeared on behalf of the State/appellant while Advocate Krishan Gopal appeared on behalf of the accused persons/respondents.
In this case, a report regarding death of two years old baby girl was lodged at police station by her grandfather and upon investigation of the dead body, many injury marks were found over her body, however, there was no fresh visible injury present. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that the mother of the victim child had registered an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against her husband (father of the victim-deceased) and his family members. However, as per settlement between her parents, the father of the deceased child had to pay Rs. 3,25,000/- to his wife/ mother of child and the custody of the child was handed over to him.
The maternal grandfather of the child raised a suspicion that the victim was killed by her paternal grandparents and then a post mortem of the child was conducted whereby it revealed the cause of death, which was empty stomach and shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to head caused by blunt force impact. Thereafter, the grandmother of the child, was arrested with the allegation of torturing the child by beating her and not giving her food and one rod and stick were recovered and seized from the house. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused under Section 302 IPC but held them guilty of the offence under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “This Court highly appreciates the wisdom of the learned trial court who minutely went through the testimony of these witnesses to acquit them for the offence under Section 302 IPC charged with. However, by overlooking the deposition of Dr. Priyal Jain (PW-10) who had conducted the post mortem report of the victim-child and stated that the weight of a normal child of 02 years of age is 12 kg, whereas the child was weighing 5 kg which is not possible to reduce the weight within two months”
The Court noted that the father of the child was not present at the place of incident, however, was on work place when the victim child fell and got unconscious, which turned out to be fatal and at the said time, the victim child was in the care of her grandmother who, being the only female member in the family and belonging to poor strata, was busy doing household chores.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the first and primary responsibility to take care of the child is of the parents and not grandparents, however, since mother had abandoned the victim child to the custody of father, who was away from the place of incident for work to earn his livelihood, the grandmother, was taking care of victim child. It would be misplaced to assume here that the respondent deliberately neglected the child when she fell down”, further observed the Court.
The Court added that the recovery of iron rod used for hot water and danda from the house of accused persons, does not in any manner link the incident to prove that the injury or harm was caused to the victim child.
“… no blood stains or marks were present at the crime spot. On the other hand, the grandmother herself rushed to the hospital carrying the victim child after she fell and sustained injuries. … the prosecution has failed to prove that accused are guilty of the offence under Section 23 of the Justice Juvenile Act, 2000 and the learned trial court has thereby erred in convicting them”, also said the Court.
Furthermore, the Court cautioned the prosecution department to not file appeals in a casual manner wherein there is no material on record to establish that the trial court has acted in totally disarray saying that such type of cases cause loss to the public ex-chequer, precious public time of the courts, energy and time of the prosecution which otherwise can be utilized for the good cause.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal, acquitted the respondents under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and directed the State to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each to both the accused within four weeks.
Cause Title- State v. Usha Devi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:5910-DB)
