In a scathing rebuke, the Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed deep concern and dismay over the handling of a death-row case involving the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl in Bihar. The case, titled “Munna Pandey vs State of Bihar,” has raised serious questions about the conduct of a Bihar trial court, the police, the public prosecutor, and even the Patna High Court.
The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed shock and disbelief at the proceedings in the lower courts, particularly the Patna High Court, which operated on the assumption of the appellant’s guilt throughout the case.
The High Court’s presumption that the appellant was solely responsible for the crime, without considering the involvement of a co-accused named Pritam Tiwari, was a significant point of contention. The Supreme Court underscored that the High Court’s approach overlooked the principle of fair trial and the pursuit of truth, which are fundamental to the criminal justice system.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is to ensure justice is served, sparing innocent individuals while punishing the guilty. To achieve this goal, it is imperative that courts actively engage in the examination of relevant information and materials to unearth the truth impartially.
In this particular case, the Supreme Court identified several discrepancies between witness accounts and the police version concerning the roles of both the appellant and the co-accused. Regrettably, neither the defense counsel nor the public prosecutor, the trial court judge, or the High Court addressed these discrepancies effectively.
The Supreme Court criticized the defense counsel for failing to challenge witnesses with their police statements, a fundamental aspect of legal procedure. Additionally, it pointed out the public prosecutor’s failure to bring to light the variances in witness statements.
The bench also held the trial judge responsible for not actively participating in the pursuit of justice. It noted that the judge should have posed pertinent questions to witnesses and familiarized themselves with crucial evidence, given the nature of the case.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that despite evidence samples having been sent, no forensic laboratory report was collected. Even though the case relied on circumstantial evidence, the accused was not subjected to a medical examination, a grave oversight in such a serious matter.
The Court expressed serious concern about the actions of senior officers involved in the case and their instructions to withhold the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report, calling it a significant flaw.
The Supreme Court also provided guidance on how a trial judge can actively participate in uncovering the truth in a case, emphasizing the court’s authority to examine documents and question witnesses.
The Patna High Court was criticized for not directing further inquiry under Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which the Supreme Court deemed necessary.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the accused, ordering the Patna High Court to rehear the case thoroughly. Notably, the accused had spent nine years in detention, most of it on death row, prompting the Supreme Court to request an expedited disposal of the appeal.
The High Court was also instructed to provide the accused with an experienced criminal lawyer. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed its registry to circulate this ruling to all High Courts, with a mandate for further dissemination to respective district courts.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi represented the accused, Munna Pandey, while Advocate Samir Ali Khan represented the Bihar government. This case follows a recent instance where the Supreme Court had previously criticized the handling of a murder case in Bihar involving RJD leader Prabhunath Singh.
