PROSECUTION COULD PRESENT NO EVIDENCE TO LINK ACCUSED TO THE MURDER, COURT RULES
GANGTOK, 15 Sept: In what may come as a surprise to the people of Sikkim Rakesh Rai, notorious her as “Spiderman”, has been acquitted in the West Sikkim murder case [which was a double murder, with the second victim killed near Coronation Bridge on NH 31A in West Bengal]. He and others accused had been arrested by the West district police in November 2003. The Sessions Judge, South and West district, recently acquitted Rakesh Rai along with other accused - Praveen Subba of Pelling, Abishek Rai of Darjeeling and Tenzing Tamang of Gyalshing, Tikjek.
Circumstantial evidence, lack of eyewitnesses, poor corroboration of events by witnesses, inadmissible disclosure statement of the accused and a key witness turning hostile have all added to the prosecution having failed to convince the court of the alleged murder of Sonam Dadul Bhutia by Rakesh Rai. As many as 54 witnesses were examined during the trial.
Interestingly, some of the witness statements included by the prosecution related to the Coronation Bridge murder which is in fact being tried by West Bengal police. It was near the Coronation Bridge that the dead body of Bina Subba was found after Rakesh Rai led the police to the spot, having supposedly confessed to killing her as well. However, the trial court observed that the Bina Subba’s murder took place in Siliguri jurisdiction for which a murder case had been registered at the Matigara police station there and hence statements about that case were not relevant to the case concerning the killing of Sonam Dadul Bhutia whose body had been found at Liching some distance from Dentam. The court concerned itself with only the case concerning the murder of SD Bhutia.
Another interesting turn of events and which cast its shadow on this case is that in the intervening period between the murder of SD Bhutia and the final tracing of the accused in Siliguri by the Kaluk Police Station under whose jurisdiction the case falls, Rakesh Rai had already been arrested by the Sadar police, Gangtok on charges of theft and burglary.
Sadar police had traced Rakesh Rai to Siliguri where he had fled to after the SD Bhutia’s murder, but the Gangtok cops were on his trail for burglary cases. Sadar police personnel got to Siliguri first and arrested him on 23 December and were proceeding to Siliguri for recovery of goods bought by the accused from his heist in Gangtok when the police team from Kaluk met them.
Rakesh Rai had bought a Maruti car and a scooter from the stolen money. The car was supposedly driven by him when he allegedly murdered SD Bhutia before escaping to Siliguri with the girl, Bina Subba. The Sadar police were proceeding towards Siliguri for recovery of the car and scooter when they met Kaluk police personnel near Coronation Bridge. It was here that the Raks Rai’s “disclosure statement” on the murder case was recorded following which he led the cops to where Bina Subba’s body lay.
The court noted that no confession (disclosure statement) made by any person while in custody of a police officer can be proved against such person unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. This was obviously not done.
Advocate N Rai, legal aid senior counsel for Rakesh Rai and Tenzing Tamang, argued that the alleged disclosure statements cannot be taken into consideration in view of the Indian Evidence Act and also stated that the alleged disclosure statement of one accused cannot be used against the co-accused. Interestingly, Rakesh Rai’s disclosure statement was recorded even before he was formally placed under arrest for murder charges. He was arrested on 27 December but his statement had already been recorded on 23 December.
Despite examining as many as 54 witnesses, the Court found most of their statements to be unsupportive to the case of the prosecution. Most statements could not throw much light on the evidence and support the case of the prosecution; the accused could not be identified by some and some others did not have anything new to share.
The court noted that the evidence of Man Bahadur Rai, brother of Rakesh Rai, and in whose name the stolen Maruti car was registered could have been the saving grace for the prosecution but he turned hostile and in his cross examination stated that he was taken to court by the police and from the court he was detained at Kaluk police station which, the Court noted, makes the voluntary nature of his statement circumspect.
It had been stated by the prosecution that Rakesh Rai had disclosed about the killing of SD Bhutia and also about the killing of Bina Subba to his brother, Man Bdr Rai in Siliguri.
The court, in its judgment, observed that though the Maruti car was found to have been stolen and registered in MB Rai’s name, witnesses in the case could not identify the accused as the persons in the vehicle on the day of the murder. As per the police, this car was being driven by the accused when they came across SD Bhutia and Bina Subba at Liching and also used to escape to Siliguri after battering SD Bhutia to death. Many witnesses had supposedly seen the car but could not identify the occupants.
The weapon of offence was found in the boot of the car and was also recorded in the disclosure statement. However, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish, “by evidence”, that the murder had been committed by the accused persons.
Also, many witnesses have described the colour of the vehicle – which was actually ash in colour – in different hues ranging from ash to sky blue and on this ground also “…the prosecution must fail”. Whatever may be the colour of the vehicle, the fact is that the prosecution has not been able to furnish witnesses who have seen and identified the occupants or to prove that they were linked to the crime. The prosecution has also failed to link the chain of circumstances to the accused by any evidence, ruled the judge.
In conclusion, the Court noted that “there is no evidence whatsoever to link the crime to the accused persons except the disclosure statement of accused Rakesh and Tenzing which however cannot be admitted in evidence due to the bar by the legal provisions. Entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and although the IO has made efforts to make a watertight case it falls apart at the seams since there is no witness to identify the accused persons and connect them to the crime.”
Therefore, all four have been acquitted.
The incident dates back to November 2003 when the body of SD Bhutia was found below the road near Liching basti. The victim was suspected to have been murdered on 27 November at around 7 pm. Bina Subba was on way to meet her sister at Sardong when she came across SD Bhutia and his friends at Pelling who offered to take her to Sardong, as per the police account. After stopping at Dentam for food and drinks, they proceeded to Pelling but halted at Liching where SD Bhutia reportedly told others to return. It was here that Rakesh Rai and the other accused allegedly came across them while driving past in their Maruti car. There was an argument and SD Bhutia was killed and Bina Subba was taken along to Siliguri, as per police accounts.
GANGTOK, 15 Sept: In what may come as a surprise to the people of Sikkim Rakesh Rai, notorious her as “Spiderman”, has been acquitted in the West Sikkim murder case [which was a double murder, with the second victim killed near Coronation Bridge on NH 31A in West Bengal]. He and others accused had been arrested by the West district police in November 2003. The Sessions Judge, South and West district, recently acquitted Rakesh Rai along with other accused - Praveen Subba of Pelling, Abishek Rai of Darjeeling and Tenzing Tamang of Gyalshing, Tikjek.
Circumstantial evidence, lack of eyewitnesses, poor corroboration of events by witnesses, inadmissible disclosure statement of the accused and a key witness turning hostile have all added to the prosecution having failed to convince the court of the alleged murder of Sonam Dadul Bhutia by Rakesh Rai. As many as 54 witnesses were examined during the trial.
Interestingly, some of the witness statements included by the prosecution related to the Coronation Bridge murder which is in fact being tried by West Bengal police. It was near the Coronation Bridge that the dead body of Bina Subba was found after Rakesh Rai led the police to the spot, having supposedly confessed to killing her as well. However, the trial court observed that the Bina Subba’s murder took place in Siliguri jurisdiction for which a murder case had been registered at the Matigara police station there and hence statements about that case were not relevant to the case concerning the killing of Sonam Dadul Bhutia whose body had been found at Liching some distance from Dentam. The court concerned itself with only the case concerning the murder of SD Bhutia.
Another interesting turn of events and which cast its shadow on this case is that in the intervening period between the murder of SD Bhutia and the final tracing of the accused in Siliguri by the Kaluk Police Station under whose jurisdiction the case falls, Rakesh Rai had already been arrested by the Sadar police, Gangtok on charges of theft and burglary.
Sadar police had traced Rakesh Rai to Siliguri where he had fled to after the SD Bhutia’s murder, but the Gangtok cops were on his trail for burglary cases. Sadar police personnel got to Siliguri first and arrested him on 23 December and were proceeding to Siliguri for recovery of goods bought by the accused from his heist in Gangtok when the police team from Kaluk met them.
Rakesh Rai had bought a Maruti car and a scooter from the stolen money. The car was supposedly driven by him when he allegedly murdered SD Bhutia before escaping to Siliguri with the girl, Bina Subba. The Sadar police were proceeding towards Siliguri for recovery of the car and scooter when they met Kaluk police personnel near Coronation Bridge. It was here that the Raks Rai’s “disclosure statement” on the murder case was recorded following which he led the cops to where Bina Subba’s body lay.
The court noted that no confession (disclosure statement) made by any person while in custody of a police officer can be proved against such person unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. This was obviously not done.
Advocate N Rai, legal aid senior counsel for Rakesh Rai and Tenzing Tamang, argued that the alleged disclosure statements cannot be taken into consideration in view of the Indian Evidence Act and also stated that the alleged disclosure statement of one accused cannot be used against the co-accused. Interestingly, Rakesh Rai’s disclosure statement was recorded even before he was formally placed under arrest for murder charges. He was arrested on 27 December but his statement had already been recorded on 23 December.
Despite examining as many as 54 witnesses, the Court found most of their statements to be unsupportive to the case of the prosecution. Most statements could not throw much light on the evidence and support the case of the prosecution; the accused could not be identified by some and some others did not have anything new to share.
The court noted that the evidence of Man Bahadur Rai, brother of Rakesh Rai, and in whose name the stolen Maruti car was registered could have been the saving grace for the prosecution but he turned hostile and in his cross examination stated that he was taken to court by the police and from the court he was detained at Kaluk police station which, the Court noted, makes the voluntary nature of his statement circumspect.
It had been stated by the prosecution that Rakesh Rai had disclosed about the killing of SD Bhutia and also about the killing of Bina Subba to his brother, Man Bdr Rai in Siliguri.
The court, in its judgment, observed that though the Maruti car was found to have been stolen and registered in MB Rai’s name, witnesses in the case could not identify the accused as the persons in the vehicle on the day of the murder. As per the police, this car was being driven by the accused when they came across SD Bhutia and Bina Subba at Liching and also used to escape to Siliguri after battering SD Bhutia to death. Many witnesses had supposedly seen the car but could not identify the occupants.
The weapon of offence was found in the boot of the car and was also recorded in the disclosure statement. However, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish, “by evidence”, that the murder had been committed by the accused persons.
Also, many witnesses have described the colour of the vehicle – which was actually ash in colour – in different hues ranging from ash to sky blue and on this ground also “…the prosecution must fail”. Whatever may be the colour of the vehicle, the fact is that the prosecution has not been able to furnish witnesses who have seen and identified the occupants or to prove that they were linked to the crime. The prosecution has also failed to link the chain of circumstances to the accused by any evidence, ruled the judge.
In conclusion, the Court noted that “there is no evidence whatsoever to link the crime to the accused persons except the disclosure statement of accused Rakesh and Tenzing which however cannot be admitted in evidence due to the bar by the legal provisions. Entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and although the IO has made efforts to make a watertight case it falls apart at the seams since there is no witness to identify the accused persons and connect them to the crime.”
Therefore, all four have been acquitted.
The incident dates back to November 2003 when the body of SD Bhutia was found below the road near Liching basti. The victim was suspected to have been murdered on 27 November at around 7 pm. Bina Subba was on way to meet her sister at Sardong when she came across SD Bhutia and his friends at Pelling who offered to take her to Sardong, as per the police account. After stopping at Dentam for food and drinks, they proceeded to Pelling but halted at Liching where SD Bhutia reportedly told others to return. It was here that Rakesh Rai and the other accused allegedly came across them while driving past in their Maruti car. There was an argument and SD Bhutia was killed and Bina Subba was taken along to Siliguri, as per police accounts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...