Supreme Court upholds acquittal of son and daughter-in-law accused of burning parents alive

The Supreme Court recently upheld the acquittal of a man and his wife who had been accused of burning the man’s parents alive by setting their hut on fire [Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. State of Bihar & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran took serious exception to the manner in which the investigation had been carried out, observing that excessive zeal in building a case can be as damaging as investigative lethargy.

“Overzealous investigation is as fatal to prosecution as are the lethargic and the tardy. Framing a case on public perceptions and personal predilections ends up in a mess, often putting to peril an innocent and always letting free the perpetrator,” the Bench said.

It observed that the investigation appeared designed to build a case against the accused rather than uncover the truth.

“The investigation, according to us was a sham and was pre-meditated, throwing to the winds every tenet of criminal jurisprudence informed by due procedure,” the judgment said.

It emphasised the need for investigators and trial courts to strictly follow established procedural safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.

“We cannot but caution the investigators and the Courts to strive to do better and follow accepted practises and procedural rules to the hilt, when lives are lost or taken and there is a possibility of false accusations being made, putting to peril the reputations of the living,” it said.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the elder son of the deceased couple, against the acquittal of his younger brother and his wife.

They were accused of setting their parents’ house on fire in Bihar in 2016.

The case arose from an incident in November 2016 when the house/ hut of an elderly lawyer and his wife was gutted in a fire. The husband died at the scene while his wife succumbed to burn injuries two days later at a hospital in Patna.

The prosecution alleged that the couple’s younger son and his wife had set fire to the hut due to a dispute over ancestral property. The trial court convicted the accused by placing reliance on alleged dying declarations made by the deceased woman and testimony of the villagers.

However, the High Court found that the prosecution case suffered from serious inconsistencies and acquitted the accused.

This prompted the couple's elder son to file an appeal before the top court.

Before the Supreme Court, Sharma argued that the High Court had wrongly disregarded several dying declarations made by the deceased woman implicating the accused.

The Court examined the law governing dying declarations and reiterated that such statements can form the sole basis of conviction only if they inspire confidence and are free from suspicion.

However, after examining the evidence on record, the Bench found that the dying declarations in the present case did not meet that standard.

The Court noted that the first dying declaration, recorded as the First Information Statement (FIS), contained a long narrative of family disputes despite the victim having suffered severe burn injuries.

It also found that the statement was recorded in the presence of villagers and relatives without any medical certification regarding the victim’s mental condition.

“The circumstances puts to peril the veracity of the FIS. The attempt of the prosecution to give the FIS an elevated status of a dying declaration hence falls flat on that count too as it does not inspire confidence," the Court said.

The Court also found the second dying declaration unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding who actually recorded it and the absence of medical certification about the victim’s condition.

Beyond the issue of dying declarations, the Bench found the overall investigation deeply flawed.

It criticised the police for failing to conduct a basic forensic examination of the scene to determine whether the fire was accidental or caused deliberately.

The Court further noted that the investigating officer had not even prepared a proper scene mahazar despite visiting the site multiple times.

"We have found that the investigation carried out is grossly deficient. The scene mahazar was not drawn up, no forensic examination was carried out at the scene of crime and no independent witnesses were arrayed. The causation of fire not investigated, the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime scene not established," the Bench said.

It observed that the investigation appeared to have been driven completely by village sentiment and longstanding property disputes between the accused and his father.

“The entire village was against the son and the mishap ended in an investigation where truth was sacrificed at the altar of perceived vengeance.” the Court said.

The Court also criticised the manner in which the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that only four broad questions were put to them.

The Bench observed that several incriminating circumstances, including the alleged dying declarations, medical evidence and motive, were never put to the accused.

Such inadequate questioning could cause serious prejudice to the accused and undermine the fairness of the trial, the Court opined.

Thus, it concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.

While upholding the acquittal, the Court reflected on the consequences of flawed investigations, noting that such cases can permanently scar the lives of those falsely accused.

“The trauma of arrest, incarceration and trial will always scar the couple and more so their children who were left orphaned, during the time when their parents were imprisoned.” it said.

Sharma was represented by advocates Smarhar Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Shweta Kumari, Pankaj Prakash, Mohd Asim, Manoj Kumar and Yash Thakur.

The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi along with advocates Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Rebecca Mishra, Ekta Kundu, Om Prakash Singh and Vikas Singh Jangra.

[Read Judgment]