Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 742 (TRI)

Prava Ranjan Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2015-12-10

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.C.DAS

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.C.Das, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, in Sessions Trial Case No.38(WT/K) of 2010, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accusedappellant guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for one year. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. M.K. Roy for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent. 3. The accused appellant, Prava Ranjan Debbarma was charged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution case is that the accused Prava Ranjan Debbarma with his wife and other family members used to reside at Ramdayalbari(locally named as Balukata) in a house adjacent to the house of his motherinlaw, the victim Surani Debbarma. The accused had quarrel with his mother in law, Surani Debbarma, often on different issues including dispute over land. On 22.04.2010, a Thursday, in the evening time the accused had a quarrel with Surani and at that time he tried to assault Surani by an axe. At that time wife of accused, namely, Suchitra Debbarma(PW6), his son Samaresh Debbarma(PW2) and wife of Samaresh, namely, Arati Debbarma(PW7) restrained the accused from assaulting Surani. On the night between 22.04.2010 and 23.04.2010 Surani used to reside in her house near to the house of accused Prava Ranjan Debbarma and she was missing from the night between 22.04.2010 and 23.04.2010. Wife of accused and other members of the family of the accused while found Surani missing from her house, went out on a search and they could notice that the accused was also missing from the house since the morning of 23.04.2010. On the fourth day, i.e., on 25.04.2010, dead body of Surani was found in the jungle about 30 meter away from the house of Surani. It was found that her hands and legs were tied with rope and her neck was also tied with a rope. On the fourth day, i.e., on 25.04.2010, dead body of Surani was found in the jungle about 30 meter away from the house of Surani. It was found that her hands and legs were tied with rope and her neck was also tied with a rope. PW4, Bipul Debbarma, informed Kalyanpur P.S. over telephone and S.I. Ranjit Debbarma(PW16) went to the spot, prepared inquest report over the dead body, seized the ropes with which her hands, legs and neck were found tied and postmortem was arranged at the spot since the dead body was decomposed. On the spot daughter of Surani, namely, Binita Debbarma(PW5) lodged an FIR and accordingly, Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.30/2010 under Sections 302/201 of IPC was registered and S.I. Ranjit Debbarma(PW16) was entrusted the charge of investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Prava Ranjan Debbarma was missing from his house at Ramdayalbari from the morning of 23.04.2010 and the local people of Ramdayalbari after the dead body of Surani was recovered, went to village Battali at Ramchandraghat, the paternal village of the accused, and, therefrom he was brought to his house at Ramdayalbari. He was found intoxicated at that time and thereafter he was handed over to police. I/O arrested him on 25.04.2010 itself and took him into custody. In course of investigation, I/O has prepared hand sketch map of the P.O., examined witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter submitted charge sheet against the accused. 5. Defence case so far ascertained from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement of the accused made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the deposition of DW1, Monoranjan Debbarma, is that the accused is innocent and that at the relevant time when the offence alleged to have committed, the accused was in the house of DW1 on the occasion of Garia Puja and that he has been falsely implicated in the murder of his motherinlaw 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, submitted that except the allegation that there was a quarrel between the accused and his deceased motherinlaw, Surani, on the evening of 22.04.2010, there is no other item of evidence to draw an irresistible conclusion that the accused committed murder of Surani Debbarma. Roy assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, submitted that except the allegation that there was a quarrel between the accused and his deceased motherinlaw, Surani, on the evening of 22.04.2010, there is no other item of evidence to draw an irresistible conclusion that the accused committed murder of Surani Debbarma. He has further submitted that the prosecution led evidence to the effect that the accused was absconding from his house from the morning of 23.04.2010 when Surani was found missing and he was brought to village Ramdayalbari from his parental village and mere absence of the accused from his house cannot be a circumstance to hold that the accused committed the murder. The prosecution has failed to lead any other evidence before the trial Court whereas simply based on suspicion the accused has been convicted and sentenced. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and also prayed for acquittal of the accused. 7. Learned Additional P.P., Mr. Debnath has submitted that the deceased is the mother in law of the accused and she was residing in a separate hut adjacent to the house of the accused. The accused had quarrel with her and in the evening of the night of missing of the deceased the accused attempted to assault her. Since thereafter the deceased was found missing and her dead body was recovered from the jungle about half kilometre away from her house and it was found that her hands and legs as well as neck were tied with ropes. The accused was absconding from his house and none but his wife and children deposed against him. The alibi of the accused has not been proved in view of the direct evidence of the family members of the accused. From the facts proved, it may be presumed that the accused has committed the offence and none else. 8. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in the case. It is completely based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means the proof of certain facts and circumstances from which a fact is inferred. From the facts proved, it may be presumed that the accused has committed the offence and none else. 8. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in the case. It is completely based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means the proof of certain facts and circumstances from which a fact is inferred. The Supreme Court consistently has held that when the evidence against the accused, particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder, consists of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities, nor freak inferences, but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances. 9. The settled principles governing admissibility and use of circumstantial evidence are :(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (ii) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (iii) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence and (iv) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than that of the accused. 10. Law requires that the prosecution has to prove certain bundle of facts, which makes a chain consistently leading to the guilt of the accused. The chain must remain unbroken. If the chain is broken or any doubt exists in the fact, which has been relied by the prosecution to complete the chain, the prosecution case must fail. 11. I am inclined to refer here a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Brijlala PD. Sinha V. State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 699 , wherein the Apex Court in para 9 observed thus : “9. As has been stated earlier, there is no evidence to indicate the manner in which the three persons in the Maruti Van were killed. Conclusion on the same, therefore, has to be arrived at from the circumstantial evidence. As has been stated earlier, there is no evidence to indicate the manner in which the three persons in the Maruti Van were killed. Conclusion on the same, therefore, has to be arrived at from the circumstantial evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is bound to establish the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must be fully proved; the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; all the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence; and lastly, the circumstances should to a great certainty exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused [(1992) 2 SCC 300]. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and it has been held by catena of decisions of this court that the circumstances proved should lead to no other inference except that of the guilt of the accused, so that the accused can be convicted of the offences charged. It may be stated as a rule of caution that before the court records conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and the circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and further, all the circumstances taken together are incapable of any explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused. It is not necessary to delve into any further, in the law on the subject which has now been crystallised by several decisions of this Court. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, let us examine the circumstances said to have been proved by the prosecution by unimpeachable evidence. Since three of the appellants have been sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge and said sentence had been affirmed by High Court, we thought it appropriate to examine the reliability of the prosecution evidence and the circumstances so proved by such evidence to find out whether all the links in the chain are complete or not. PWs 7 and 8 are the two Constables, who had been posted at Barachatti police station on the relevant date of occurrence. PWs 7 and 8 are the two Constables, who had been posted at Barachatti police station on the relevant date of occurrence. These two witnesses have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court and nothing has been pointed out to us in this Court to discard their testimony, in fact, no argument has been advanced on that score. According to PW7, on the early morning of 5121993, while Dudh Nath Ram and Victor were at the police Station, Jaikaran Yadav came there and said that criminals are moving ahead firing shots. Getting this information, the Officer in charge, Dudh Nath Ram, Victor and two Constables and a Havildar went on a Maruti Van and Brijlala later on went by a private jeep which used to remain at the police station. Further evidence of PW7 is that when these officers returned back to the police station, they had brought three dead bodies in the jeep with them and they had also brought one Maruti Van by towing. This evidence of PW7 has been fully corroborated by PW8 who was also posted at the police station on the date. On the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, it can be safely held that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that all the police officers excluding Brijlala Prasad, on getting information from Jaikaran went together in a Maruti Van with their arms and ammunitions chasing the alleged criminals and then returned back with three dead bodies as well as another Maruti Van. The evidence of PW7 further establishes the fact that the Maruti Van which had been brought by towing was found to be damaged and blood marks were also seen on the said vehicle. He further stated that the dead bodies brought by the police people had bullet injuries on them. The prosecution evidence clearly establishes the fact that the speeding vehicle had to stop at 71 Mile Post on account of a traffic jam and the police personnel could easily approach the said vehicle, which was immobile. It is also established beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle in which the deceased persons were moving had several bullet marks on its body and pieces of bones and blood marks has also been found in the said vehicle as stated by PW58.” 12. It is also established beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle in which the deceased persons were moving had several bullet marks on its body and pieces of bones and blood marks has also been found in the said vehicle as stated by PW58.” 12. I am further inclined to refer here another latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal V. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 148 and I would like to quote here paras 36 and 37 of the judgment, which read as follows: “36. In cases where the direct evidence is scarce, the burden of proving the case of prosecution is bestowed upon motive and circumstantial evidence. It is the chain of events that acquires prime importance in such cases. Before analysing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed [See: Bodhraj Vs. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45 ]. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed above, clearly proves the chain of events connecting the accused to the guilt of the commission of the offence. The entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not only convincing, but is also trustworthy. Even if the confession of accused 4 and 7 made before PW 1 and PW 2, which is barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, is not taken into account, the other evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence. 37. Even if the confession of accused 4 and 7 made before PW 1 and PW 2, which is barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, is not taken into account, the other evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence. 37. This Court has been consistently taking the view that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. In the present case, on scrutiny of evidence on record, we are convinced that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events which points at the guilt of the accused.” 13. Let us now see the evidence in the case at hand as to 14. 16(sixteen) witnesses have been examined, out of them what are the circumstances the prosecution has been able to prove. PW13, PW15 and PW16 are the official witnesses and the rest are witnesses of fact. PW14 was tendered by the prosecution and neither examined in chief nor cross examined. Such tendering of witnesses by the prosecution without any examination in chief has no sanction of law. This Court as well as the Apex Court repeatedly held that there shall not be any tendering of witness without examination. The trial Court, it is expected, should follow the directions. 15. Out of the rest of the witnesses, PW6 is the wife of the accused. PWs2 and 10 are the sons of the accused and PW7 is the daughter in law of the accused (son’s wife). The accused used to reside in the same family with those witnesses. The victim, i.e., deceased Surani, is the mother in law of the accused, i.e., mother of PW6. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses are very important and significant. PW1 is the brother of deceased Surani and PW5, the informant, is the daughter of Surani. PW4 was earlier a member of the village committee. PW8 is the soninlaw of deceased Surani, i.e., husband of the informant Binita. 16. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses are very important and significant. PW1 is the brother of deceased Surani and PW5, the informant, is the daughter of Surani. PW4 was earlier a member of the village committee. PW8 is the soninlaw of deceased Surani, i.e., husband of the informant Binita. 16. The first circumstance on which the prosecution has relied is that on 22.04.2010 in the evening there was altercation between the accused and Surani and at that time accused tried to assault Surani by an axe, but he was prevented in doing so by PWs2, 6 and 7. PW2 stated that about one year back one day in the evening there was a quarrel between Surani and his father and on that day his father tried to cause hurt to Surani by an axe. His wife resisted. Thereafter they stopped his father. Surani was sent to her hut. PW6 has stated that on a Thursday about a year back in the evening her husband suddenly attacked her mother with a dao and then his son Samaresh and his wife Arati and herself resisted her husband. PW7 has stated that after Garia puja on a Thursday she returned to her matrimonial house with her husband in the evening. Garia puja was celebrated on Wednesday. When she came to her matrimonial home she noticed that her father in law was about to kill the mother of her mother in law by an axe and then she and her husband resisted her father in law. Her mother in law was engaged in other works. 17. The evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7, as quoted herein above, has not been shaken in any manner in cross examination. Other witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 learnt about that incident happened in the evening of 22.04.2010 from the eyewitnesses and corroborated it. 18. It is, therefore, proved with overwhelming evidence that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the evening of 22.04.2010 (Thursday) and at that time the accused tried to assault Surani with an axe. 19. The next circumstance on which the prosecution relied is the absconsion of accused. 18. It is, therefore, proved with overwhelming evidence that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the evening of 22.04.2010 (Thursday) and at that time the accused tried to assault Surani with an axe. 19. The next circumstance on which the prosecution relied is the absconsion of accused. The inmates of the house of the accused made consistent statement that the accused was in the house at Ramdayalbari (Balukata) along with other members of the family, i.e., PWs 2, 6 and 7 and that the accused had quarrelled with his mother in law, i.e., deceased Surani. It is also evident in the evidence of those witnesses that after the incident of quarrel Surani went to her hut situated nearby. 20. PW7 in her evidence stated that on that night she slept in the hut of Surani Debbarma and from Friday morning, when she woke up, she did not see Surani. They made a consistent statement that from the morning of 23.04.2010 the accused was also found missing from the house. PWs 2, 6, 7 and other witnesses went on a search for Surani all around, but could not trace out where about of her till 24.04.2010. At that time the accused was also absent from his house and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was absconding. The dead body of Surani was found in jungle about half kilometre away on 25.04.2010 with her hands and legs tied with rope and a rope with cord round the neck. It is deposed by all the witnesses that they suspected that the accused might have committed murder of Surani and thereafter he absconded and, therefore, they went to village Battali at Ram Chandra ghat, i.e., paternal village of the accused and PWs 11 and 12 found him consuming alcohol and he was intoxicated. They brought him back to village Ramdayalbari and handed over to police. 21. The accused by examining DW1 brought a story that he went to attend Garia puja in the house of DW1 and at the relevant point of time he was in the house of DW1. They brought him back to village Ramdayalbari and handed over to police. 21. The accused by examining DW1 brought a story that he went to attend Garia puja in the house of DW1 and at the relevant point of time he was in the house of DW1. Neither during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses nor in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused made any statement that he was in the house of DW1 at the relevant point of time on the occasion of Garia puja and, therefore, he was absent from his house. While the family members of the accused has made a consistent statement that the accused was also found missing from the morning of 23.04.2010, the story that the accused went to the house of DW1 to attend Garia puja, as stated by DW1, appears to be a cooked story having no truth behind. 22. ‘Absconsion’ means going in a clandestine manner out of the jurisdiction of the Court or to be concealed in order to avoid their process; to hide, concealed, or absent one’s self clandestinely, with intent to avoid legal process. The accused, as it appears, used to reside with PWs 2, 6 and 7 in the house at Ramdayalbari. He was in the house on 22.04.2010 at least up to the evening when there was quarrel between him and the deceased. There is nothing in the evidence of those witnesses or any other witness when the accused went out of the house. It is in the evidence of those witnesses that the accused was not found from the morning of 23.04.2010. PW7 stated that she was sleeping in the house of the deceased and in the morning when she woke up she found the deceased was missing from the house. 23. The two circumstances have no doubt been proved that in the evening of 22.04.2010 there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and at that time the accused tried to assault the deceased with an axe and that the accused was found absconding from his house from the morning of 23.04.2010. Except these two circumstances, there is no other evidence to draw a chain of circumstance about the guilt of the accused. 24. Except these two circumstances, there is no other evidence to draw a chain of circumstance about the guilt of the accused. 24. It is proved with overwhelming evidence that there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused in the evening and thereafter the deceased went to her hut. At night PW7 slept with the deceased. Her dead body was recovered from the jungle about half kilometre away with her hands and legs tied and a rope round the neck. There is no evidence at all as to how the accused took the deceased to half kilometre away from her hut. If there was quarrel and the accused made an attempt to kill the deceased, obviously at night the deceased will not accompany the accused half kilometre away from her hut in the jungle. There is also no prosecution story that the deceased was killed in her hut and thereafter the dead body was taken half kilometre away. If she was killed in her hut itself, while she was sleeping, there might have some evidence that the accused trespassed in the hut breaking the door and there ought to be marks of disturbance in the bed of the deceased and at least PW7 could notice something unnatural in the hut. Unfortunately the prosecution has failed to prove any such circumstances. 25. We are constrained to observe that this is a sheer instance of a murder case investigated as well as prosecuted most callously. No attempt was taken while examining the witnesses also to elaborate the factual aspect to draw an inference. A presumption cannot be drawn from the air. Certain facts must be proved with consistent evidence to draw a presumption of a fact. Neither the investigation was diverted to collect reasonable and probable evidence nor the prosecution also at the time of examination of the witnesses did elucidate the facts while the witnesses were in the witness box. 26. The deceased was found tied her hands and legs with rope. Her neck was also tied with a rope and those were seized and proved, but there is no evidence as to wherefrom those were collected by the offender. I/O simply recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted the charge sheet based on the statement of those witnesses, which only carries the fact of quarrel in the evening and absconsion of the accused and nothing else. 27. I/O simply recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted the charge sheet based on the statement of those witnesses, which only carries the fact of quarrel in the evening and absconsion of the accused and nothing else. 27. No doubt from the two circumstances proved by the prosecution, a grave and serious suspicion against the accused appears, but it is the settled law that suspicion whatever grave cannot take the place of proof and based on suspicion conviction cannot be given. 28. We are really shocked to read the evidence of PW16, I/O of the case. A bare reading of the statement of I/O clearly demonstrate that except taking of formal steps, i.e. preparation of inquest, arranging of postmortem examination, preparation of a hand sketch map and examination of witnesses and recording their statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., no serious effort was taken by I/O to collect material evidence to link the circumstances for arriving at a conclusion of guilt of the accused. A murder case should not be entrusted to such a police officer who has no experience and ability to conduct investigation of a serious case. 29. We are constrained to refer here the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat V. Kishanbhai & ors., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108 . A six years old girl child was rapped and murdered, but because of the lapses of investigation and prosecution the supposed accused was acquitted. In that case the Apex Court with great anxiety for the sake of administration of justice in criminal cases has given certain directions and copy of that judgment has been forwarded to the Home Secretaries of all States and Union Territories. To draw attention of the State respondent, once again, the directions given in paras 21, 22 and 23 are quoted hereunder, which read as follows : “21. The situation referred to above needs to be remedied. For the said purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the objective. We accordingly direct, that on the completion of the investigation in a criminal case, the prosecuting agency should apply its independent mind, and require all shortcomings to be rectified, if necessary by requiring further investigation. The situation referred to above needs to be remedied. For the said purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the objective. We accordingly direct, that on the completion of the investigation in a criminal case, the prosecuting agency should apply its independent mind, and require all shortcomings to be rectified, if necessary by requiring further investigation. It should also be ensured that the evidence gathered during investigation is truly and faithfully utilized, by confirming that all relevant witnesses and materials for proving the charges are conscientiously presented during the trial of a case. This would achieve two purposes. Only persons against whom there is sufficient evidence, will have to suffer the rigours of criminal prosecution. By following the above procedure, in most criminal prosecutions, the agencies concerned will be able to successfully establish the guilt of the accused. 22. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore, essential that every State should put in place a procedural mechanism which would ensure that the cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance of the above purpose, it is considered essential to direct the Home Department of every State to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of each prosecution case. A standing committee of senior officers of the police and prosecution departments should be vested with the aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands of the above committee, should be utilized for crystalizing mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution, or both. The Home Department of every State Government will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior investigation/ prosecution officials course content drawn from the above consideration. The same should also constitute course content of refresher training programmes for senior investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials should be vested in the same committee of senior officers referred to above. Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than 10 glaring lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case), and similar other judgments, may also be added to the training programmes. The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials should be vested in the same committee of senior officers referred to above. Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than 10 glaring lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case), and similar other judgments, may also be added to the training programmes. The course content will be reviewed by the above committee annually, on the basis of fresh inputs, including emerging scientific tools of investigation, judgments of Courts, and on the basis of experiences gained by the standing committee while examining failures, in unsuccessful prosecution of cases. We further direct, that the above training programme be put in place within 6 months. This would ensure that those persons who handle sensitive matters concerning investigation/prosecution are fully trained to handle the same. Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would not be able to feign innocence when they are made liable to suffer departmental action for their lapses. 23. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the investigating/prosecuting official(s) concerned responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the official concerned may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly, we direct the Home Department of every State Government to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6 months.” 30. Another aspect which has not escaped out notice is that of the conduct of medical officer, who has conducted postmortem examination. He has made an observation that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia due to homicidal strangulation by means of rope. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6 months.” 30. Another aspect which has not escaped out notice is that of the conduct of medical officer, who has conducted postmortem examination. He has made an observation that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia due to homicidal strangulation by means of rope. In his crossexamination he stated that he did not cut the dead body while conducting postmortem examination and he did not touch the dead body personally. It is the cardinal principle of Forensic Science that the Autopsy Surgeon should record what he found externally and then after dissection what he found internally in the dead body. While giving a finding of homicidal strangulation the Autopsy Surgeon was bound to observe what was the condition of the internal organ in the neck region and the symptoms in other parts of the body. In our considered opinion, PW13, Dr. Debasish Debroy of Kalyanpur Rural Hospital, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body, has not done it according to the principles of medical jurisprudence and, therefore, he is also liable to be cautioned by the Department. We direct that the State Government in the Health Department shall issue direction to the medical officers conducting postmortem examination to follow the rules of postmortem examination carefully and to record the opinion both after external examination and internal examination. Since the dead body was a decomposed condition, the Autopsy Surgeon did not dissect the dead body and did not touch the dead body, which was his duty as a public servant and he mechanically submitted the report. 31. After a careful consideration of the evidence and materials on record, we are of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and hence, the accused is entitled to get acquittal from the charge on benefit of doubt. 32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused be set at liberty at once. 33. Send down the lower court record along with a copy of this judgment. 34. Send a copy of this Judgment to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police for taking appropriate steps.