Sweta Agarwal murder case: Gauhati High Court sets aside death sentence of accused

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded by a trial court to one Gobind Singhal, along with the life sentences awarded to his mother Kamali Devi Singhal and sister Bhabani Singhal, on the charge of their involvement in the murder of a young girl named Sweta Agarwal on December 14, 2017. The court further ordered a re-trial of the murder case and directed the trail court to try and conclude the new trial within six months.

The High Court stated in its judgment: "Law is well settled that the more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of proof required. During trial involving heinous crimes, the accused must also be afforded a fair opportunity to defend his interest."

The court noted that Gobind Singhal was found guilty by the trial court for committing the murder of the Sweta Agarwal, who was a student of a commerce college of the city at the time of the crime.

"The evidence brought on record, in the ultimate analysis, may or may not be sufficient to establish the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the murder charge is proved as per law then the accused may also deserve stringent punishment. However, the said aspect of the matter would be relevant only when the accused is subjected to a fair trial. Regardless of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, unless this court is satisfied that the accused was afforded a fair trial and was given every opportunity to defend himself, the question of affirming conviction for murder and award of capital punishment would not arise," the High Court observed.

In the present case, having regard to the manner in which the incriminating circumstances were brought to the notice of the accused (Gobind Singhal) while recording his statements under section 313 CrPC, we are convinced that the accused did not get a proper opportunity to respond to all the incriminating evidence available against him in a proper manner. The learned trail judge was not correct in putting such long and voluminous questions to the accused pertaining to the incriminating circumstances. We also find that some of the incriminating evidences were put to the accused in the form of interrogatories, hinting at some form of predisposition on the part of the trial judge against the accused. The learned court below had also failed to put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused which were eventually relied upon for his conviction. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provision of section 313 CrPC. Going by the nature and degree of non-compliance, as noticed above, there can hardly be any doubt about the fact that prejudice to the accused was inherent, having a vitiating effect on the trial. We, therefore, find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that a fair trial was denied to his client," the court observed in its judgment.

Also Read:  Assam: Special Court Sentences Three To Death In Abhayakhuti Rape And Murder Case

Also Watch: