High Court upholds Garai’s acquittal in Indira Sharma murder case

GANGTOK, 18 Sept: The division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice P Kohli and Justice SP Wangdi has upheld the acquittal of RN Garai, accused in the murder of Indira Sharma at Burtuk, Gangtok in January 2005. While the state government’s appeal against the acquittal granted by the lower court was found to be riddled with contradictions and also the possibility of planted witnesses, the submissions of the counsel for the accused suggests that the accused himself may have been framed.
The court, in its order dated 17 September, noted that on examination of the evidence as regards the circumstances, on the face of it there appear to be corroborations among the witnesses. However, on closer examination, the court noted that there are irreconcilable contradictions which render the proof of the circumstance as doubtful.
The court observed, on examination of the evidence submitted, that “We, therefore, find that the evidence produced by the prosecution is riddled with contradictions thereby rendering the case of the prosecution extremely doubtful”.
Significantly the court also commented that it got the impression that the witness, Meena Sharma, sister-in-law of the deceased, to be a planted witness.
After hearing the two sides at length, the court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the most vital circumstances appearing against the accused having visited the shop of the deceased on 01, 02 and 04 January 2005 offering sale of sugar and kerosene, the deceased having been seen last with the accused, and the accused having rendered the disclosure statement, leading to the recovery of the incriminating articles, and having proceeded on leave the very next day of the murder, i.e. 05 January 2005.
“Under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt would certainly lie in favour of the Respondent-Accused”, noted the high court in its order.
An important point raised was the failure of one of the witnesses to identify the accused in the trial court. The High Court observed that the witness was unable to identify the Accused in Court and in his cross-examination he has categorically stated that - the said Army personnel was not like or resembled (sic) the accused standing in the dock.
The court noted, “The fact of the Respondent-Accused having made the disclosure statement, Exhibit 71, also do not appear to be free of infirmity. P.W.23, Dawa Tshering Lepcha, and P.W.24, Sonam Choejee Lachungpa said to be witnesses to the disclosure statement, Exhibit 71 of the Respondent-Accused and recovery of incriminating articles as a consequence thereto and, therefore, vital to the prosecution, ought to have deposed on those in their first examination, i.e., P.W.23 on 19-08-2009 and P.W.24 on 24-08-2009, but they were completely silent about it.
Curiously, it was brought on record only on their recall when P.W.24 was examined on 23-11-2010 and P.W.23 on 09-02-2011, i.e., much beyond the period of one year after their first examination. The recall of the witnesses per se may not displace the fact of the Respondent-Accused having made the disclosure statement, Exhibit 71, but it certainly gives rise to a lurking suspicion in our minds and, may have remained so but, for the suspicion being justified on account of serious discrepancies and gross contradictions arising in their evidence when compared with their statements recorded earlier on 19-08-2009 and 25-08-2009…. The very second sentence that the police had requested him to be a witness to the seizure memos prepared by them in connection with the case and that he accordingly did, indicates that he was only a signatory to the seizure memos and not the recovery in terms of the disclosure statement”.
“Such being the nature of the evidence pertaining to the disclosure statement and the recoveries riddled with contradiction and confusion as they are, we are of the considered view that they are completely unreliable and fraught with risk to give any credence thereto,” the  High Court has noted in its judgment.
This along with other discrepancies in the evidence as produced by the prosecution led the court to dismiss the appeal of the state government against the order of acquittal of the lower court.
Lance Naik Rajendra Nath Garai, the accused in the murder of Indira Sharma after having allegedly sexually assaulted her in the year 2005 has gone scot free after the court acquitted him of all charges. In a quirky combination of legal requirements and technicalities and lack of sufficient evidence, RN Garai, was pronounced not guilty by the District and Sessions Judge, Special Division II, a few months ago and was ordered to be immediately set free from prison where he had been held since his arrest in 2005.