Previous 14 / 21 Next

14 belongs to him. PW-13, IO, in his cross-examination admits that he does not know whether the appellant No.1 is the owner of the motorcycle. He further admits that no attempts were made by him to enquire about the owner of the vehicle. 30. Testimony of PWs 4 and 5 is also unreliable since it contradicts that of PW-10. As per PW-10, herself and Anita had seen the bodies of the deceased at 3 a.m. She did not see the assailants and does not mention anything about the motorcycle. Hence, there is no occasion for the assailants of the deceased to remain in the house and hence the motorcycle would not be outside the house of the deceased at 4 p.m. PWs 4 and 5 contradict each other. While PW-4 states that the motorcycle was of Bajaj Company, PW-5 mentions it as a motorcycle from Hero Honda Company. PW-5 in his examination-in-chief says that he had moved the motorcycle to allow the tractor to pass. However, in his cross-examination, he says that he did not move the motorcycle and it was PW-4, who moved it. PW-5 does not even state the day or month when he saw the motorcycle. 31. PW-2 was the witness to the seizure of the motorcycle. According to him, the motorcycle was red in colour. However, as per the seizure memo, the recovered motorcycle was black in colour. This makes the recovery of the motorcycle unreliable. It is relevant to state that the

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Girdhari Vaishnav

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian
Indonesian

Case Title: Digamber Vaishnav and Anr v. State of Chhatisgarh

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2014

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint

Case Background (300 words max): The case was regarding robbery and murder of five relatives. The circumstances against the accused include child witness testimony; disclosure statement to the police (regarding recovery evidence including motorcycle, cash and jewellery); forensics report matched the accused’s clothes with clothes recovered from the site of occurrence; fingerprint expert’s report matched accused’s fingerprints recovered from the site of occurrence.

The trial court sentenced the accused to death on 14.05.2014, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the same on 30.04.2015. On appeal, the Supreme Court set these judgements aside and acquitted the accused on 05.03.2019.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

There was an unexpected delay in reporting the offences.
The court’s strong reliance on the oral testimony of a child witness is weak, because she was not a witness to the actual incident and her testimony had not been corroborated. Another witnesses’ testimony was hearsay and unreliable.
The evidence of recovered items was unreliable and they were not connected to the crime.
The fingerprint report could not be relied upon
The evidence of last seen was insufficient to establish guilt.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The court held that: Witness testimonies 1)The testimony of the child witness need not necessarily be corroborated against other evidence as a matter of rule, but the witness should be reliable and the testimony should be evaluated carefully. Here, she was not an eyewitness to the incident and her evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and thus could not be relied not, especially because neither her nor any of the other witnesses identified the accused, and the First Information Report was registered against unknown persons. 2) There were multiple contradictions across testimonies offered by the prosecution, about important material facts regarding whereabouts and timings. 3) Important witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, without any reasons for the same, including the person who allegedly first discovered the deceased and the fingerprint expert. Reporting: There was an unexplained delay in reporting the crime, that of about 12 hours, despite the police station being only about 6 kilometres away, which weakens the case of the prosecution. Recovery Evidence:

The recovery evidence (motorcycle, clothes) was weak as the prosecution did not attempt to prove that they belonged to the accused.
The other recovery evidences (anklet and cash) was also weak, because the prosecution failed to prove that it belonged to any of the deceased.
The testimony of the witness to the seizure memo was contrary to the memo brought on record.
The First Investigation Report did not record show any items being stolen. Fingerprint and Forensic Evidence:
There was a day’s gap between the lifting of the fingerprints and the seizure of items, with no explanation for the same.
No prints were found on the doors or almirah to substantiate a robbery. Further, several expensive ornaments were left intact in the house.
The forensic evidence was insufficient, and findings of the hair analysis was inconclusive. Last Seen Evidence: The last seen evidence was weak, as there was nothing to prove that there was a close proximity between the time of discovery and recovery of the dead body. Suspicion: There could be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Sections 394, 34, 302, 366 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Judicial Precedents: Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, Panchhi and others v. State of U.P, State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, Alagupandi alias Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

English

Is the case brief featured?: Yes

Primary Documents

Digambar_SC judgment.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Girdhari Vaishnav

Primary Documents

Notifications