The Supreme Court acquitted two murder convicts while refusing to accept the statement in evidence given by the parents of the deceased that they took meal and slept after seeing their son being assaulted.

The Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi was adjudicating upon an appeal challenging the Judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court upholding the conviction of two murder accused.

The prosecution case mainly rested on the testimony of the father and mother of the deceased, who had allegedly seen the two accused persons assaulting their son with a weapon.

Before the High Court, the reliability of their testimony was seriously put to question. However, the High Court rejected the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants.

Aggrieved appellants-accused approached Supreme Court.

Advocate Varinder Kumar Sharma appeared for the accused persons whereas Advocate Debojit Borkakati represented Respondent-State.

According to the counsel for the appellants-accused, the statements of the father and mother of the deceased carried inherent improbabilities. The counsel for appellants-accused contended that it was against the natural and normal conduct for any person to go home after having seen his son in pool of blood on being assaulted by two persons and then, to take the meal and go to sleep.

It was further submitted that this unnatural conduct of the parents of the deceased was ignored by the Sessions Judge altogether and that the High Court has provided justification to this unnatural conduct with reference to the fact that the deceased had allegedly been involved in quarrels with other people.

On the other hand, counsel for the State duly supported the judgment and order impugned and submitted that when the totality of circumstances are taken into account, the statements of the prosecution witness cannot be said to be totally unreliable.

The Court observed thus "As per the assertion of PW-2 and PW-3, they had seen their son being assaulted by two persons with weapon. PW-2 had allegedly fallen unconscious after seeing the blood oozing from the body of his son. In that situation and scenario, it is difficult to appreciate that these witnesses would go home, take meal and go to bed without bothering about the welfare of their injured son."

The Court held that the testimony of the father and mother of the deceased could not have been accepted as that of eye-witnesses to the incident from any standpoint.

"It is true that the deceased had been brutally assaulted and had received multiple injuries on vital parts but, on the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants alone were the authors of such injuries. In view of above, we find it to be a fit case for interference in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court.", the Court held while setting aside the Judgment of the High Court and Trial Court convicting accused-appellants.

Cause Title- Dibaker Nunia & Anr. v. State Of Assam

Click here to read/download the Judgment