Previous 12 / 21 Next

12 the first time. This is reflected from the FIR which has been registered against unknown persons. In such circumstances, it is risky to rely on the uncorroborated identification of the appellants at the instance of PW-8, who has not disclosed about the appellants at the first instance before PW-1 Badridas. 25. Shanti Bai, PW-3, wife of PW-1 has stated that PW-8 informed her that her mother had gone to work. This is in direct contradiction with the fact that as per the prosecution story, she was lying dead. Chandni herself states that in the morning, she saw her grandmother dead. Further, FIR records Badridas as saying that Chandni told him that Subhadra Bai is lying dead in her room. 26. The testimony of PW-8 also contradicts with that of PW-10. PW-10 states that herself and Anita had gone to the house of the deceased at 3 A.M. and had seen the bodies of the deceased and also the children. However, PW-8 states that she got up at 7.00 A.M. and that wife of Tekram (Anita) opened the door. 27. The testimony of PW-8 also contradicts that of PW-1, Badridas. According to PW-1, he was informed about the incident only at about 2 to 2.30 P.M. by Chandni. However, PW-8 states that "It is correct to suggest that in the morning, I had told Badridas that who had killed them. I did not know them."

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Digambar Vaishnav

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

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

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 concerning 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 jewellry); 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

Digambar Vaishnav

Primary Documents

Notifications