Chandresh Marskole v. The State of Madhya Pradesh        

Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: Criminal Appeal No.1580/2009                                                                                                

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sunita Yadav                                

Date of Judgment: May 4, 2022

Abstract

The case comment examines the verdict of Chandresh Marskole v. The case of State of Madhya Pradesh was one of the instances where I was so agitated, and I wondered what really happens to our justice system. The case is not even investigated properly, the use of false evidence at the level of the trial court, the systematic discrimination towards the appellant, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shows the level of injustice that is shocking and heartbreaking. Though the intervention by the High Court gave some hope that the judiciary might be turned into, the case reveals the vulnerability of justice in India. This remark attempts to expose the accusation of the prosecution, to bring out the inconsistencies and personal on the wider standing of this systemic failures.

Introduction

As I went through the judgment, I felt the loss that had been caused to the plaintiff, he was in his final-year MBBS college, would have been the first doctor of his village, a new light for his family and the neighbourhood. His case would have remained as one of the inspirational tales, which eventually had become his nightmare that would be based on college politics, groundless arguments, made-up evidence, more than four thousand seven hundred and forty days in jail, a pathetic investigation, and discrimination. When I go through this line of judgement which states, that whether his belonging to the scheduled tribe had anything to do with the fate that he was a victim of cannot be mentioned with authority, but the contempt, discrimination and oppression which the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are subjected to in the state is a notorious fact and does not need any extraneous evidence to be on the wire to prove the same. I could only feel an uber uneasiness, this statement obviously sheds some light on the social discrimination, social inequalities of marginalized groups. The case cold called to mind the movie Jai Bhim, in which failures in the system and prejudices against lower castes are projected. This is the purpose of the present case comment, which is going to analyse the facts, the legal issues and the judgment at the micro level.

Background of the case

What the prosecution  supposedly stated  occurred: (it is out of the Judgement)

The Appellant had apparently been in a relationship with her and is suspected to have murdering and dumping her body.

It is claimed that on 19/08/08, the Appellant took the Toyota Quails vehicle, which belongs to Dr. Hemant Verma (hereinafter referred to as PW1), and with No. MP04 HB 1550 to visit Hoshangabad on some urgent work. PW1 is a Senior Resident at the Gandhi Medical College who was attached to the Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal.PW1 did not like to give the Appellant at first, but relented when the Appellant insisted. At about 11.45 AM on 19/09/08, the Appellant is said to have rung up his driver Ram Prasad ( hereinafter referred to as PW9) and instructed him to take the Appellant to Hoshangabad. Around 12.10 p.m., when the vehicle was at Budhni Ghat, the Appellant is stated to have directed PW9 to drive the vehicle towards Pachmarhi. It is seen that the vehicle had discovered a spot close to the “Denwa Darshan Mazhar” when the Appellant asked PW9 to bring the vehicle to a halt. The event occurred at about 4.45 PM. This driver explains that he left the car after about two hundred and fifty feet to answer the call of nature when he heard a sound of a thud and came rushing to the car, only to realize that the dickey of the vehicle was open and the bedding had gone. PW9 also adds that he noticed that the Appellant stood close to the railing just before the ravine.PW9 also notes that they got back to Bhopal at 10.00 pm. Then there were efforts by PW9 to reach PW1, as he was not able to take the call on 19/09/08. PW9 states that they reached Bhopal in July at 10.00 p.m. This was followed by PW9 trying to call PW1, who happened not to be there to answer his phone on 19/09/08. Subsequent letter was found bearing date 20/09/08 addressed to The Inspector General of Police, Bhopal Range, Bhopal through the Station house Officer, P.S. Koh-I Fiza. which said, subject:  intimation of murder

The reason why he had borrowed my personal car, Qualis bearing No.MP-04-HB-1550, Sabandash Chandresh Maskole, student of Final Year MBBS, resident of Room No.61, B Block Hostel, JMC, had come to meet me yesterday, i.e., 19.9.2008, and had requested me to lend him on the urgent need of going to Hoshangabad, Sir. On my refusal by me he pleaded with me and he took the vehicle with my driver at 12:00 p.m. He had stolen a bedding out of the hostel and according to the driver Ram Prasad the vehicle had not reached near Budhni when he told the driver to direct the vehicle to Pachmarhi where he told the driver to stop the vehicle in the jungle of Pachmarhi and when the driver went to answer nature, a short distance away, he removed the bedding out of the vehicle and threw it off the ravine and that bedding was very heavy. At 10.00 p.m., he returned the vehicle, and according to the driver, the situation is suspicious. There was a considerable time that the student was involved in such a relationship with a girl of Pachmarhi who used to visit him in the boys’ hostel and even spent the night there.. That since I had to run out in the morning and since I came back in the evening my family had informed my driver and hence I am letting the police know the whole thing so that any misleading of justice can be thwarted and the wheels of justice are facilitated and not being able to mislead the proceedings of justice and the murderer of the deceased is not able to mislead the system of justice. The original piece of the letter (Ex.P1) is written in Hindi. Questions were put to PW1, and he was informed by his driver that he came to know about the whole episode of 19/09/08 at that time he too felt doubtful and rushed to inform then I.G Bhopal, Mr. Shailendra Shrivastava that it is possible that the Appellant had committed some crime.

It was on 20/09/08 that the police, who were now acting on the complaint of the PW1, started an investigation. A body that is claimed and suspected to be that of Shruti Hill by the police was retrieved on 22/09/08 in a gulch close to Denwa Darshan. This finding by the prosecution, according to the crimes, was founded upon the alleged confession by Chandresh under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. At 2:00 PM on 25/09/08, Chandresh was officially taken into custody. At 2.50 PM, a memo was prepared that reported his claim of giving the location of the body, which he allegedly did during his confession. According to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the car mat had traces of human blood.

What The High Court Found Out: The Truth

The weaknesses in the statements of the accusing (Mr. Piyush Bhatnagar) were well discovered by the Ld. Counsel (Mr. H.R. Naidu), in his arguments and cross-examination, revealed the contradictory nature:

5. The letter left by PW1 in the case resulted in the conclusion that the appellant was a murderer, and we even find that the appellant had a girl with whom they were in bed, and that the appellant had probably put Shruti Hill’s body in that bedding. The question posed by the High Court was how PW1 knew that the beddings had a body in it, and more to the point, did it belong to Shruti Hill before there was any investigation? Why was Chandresh, a murderer, as addressed in the letter by PW1, before any evidence made such a claim possible? All these questions were signs of a possible conspiracy to frame Chandresh, which implied a higher implication of PW1.
6. The Bedding: PW9 said the bedding was heavy when he never got to raise it or touch it. Provided that PW9 possessed the key, why would Chandresh be able to access the bedding so as to discard it without PW9 realizing?
7. The police asserted to Chandresh that the confession of Section 27 made it possible to find the body of Shruti. Upon noting, the High Court said: The disposal of the bedding had already been described by the letter provided by PW1. How then can the discovery be viewed to be Chandresh’s disclosure? This was a big indication that the Section 27 memo was fabricated in order to increase the case of the prosecution.
8. PW13 (Dhanraj Prasad Nagabanshi) produced a toll receipt to indicate that four people were in the car at the time of the trip. Why was the identity of the other two passengers not determined?
9. Dr. Hemant Verma is alleged to have travelled on the day of the crime to Indore. Neither the police nor the trial court confirmed. Why did he hand over his Qualis to the appellant when he had to proceed to Indore?

Important conclusions noted by the High Court:

The High Court emphasized the roles and responsibilities of the police in making a fair investigation. It emphasized that the word Investigation is not a technicality that a procedure must go through, but a way aimed at finding the truth. The judgment states, an initiation of an investigation is not a witch hunt but an attempt to unfold the truth. The reason is not to affirm the conviction of the suspect/alleged accused as much as it is to facilitate the Courts in their efforts to make just decisions. This also incorporates the responsibility to report to the Court that it is trying the wrong individual as accused when the evidence of his innocence is dug out after a later date. An investigation should be just, and it should not only look at the account of the incident by the victim, but also inquire into the defence by the charged individual.

When in his police statement, the witness mentions that the bedding was heavy, the police should have probed him how he knew the bedding was heavy when he had not helped the Appellant to put it in the car? But to this witness no such question is put. How, the Appellant could open the hatch of the dickey at Denwa Darshan which had been placed and key to it at his possession(PW9)? It presented that the car had four occupants that are inclusive of PW9. Nevertheless, there is no additional statement of PW9 which is taken by the police asking who the other two men in the car were. PW9 was not interrogated and this could have helped in determining whether he was saying the truth about what happened on 19/09/08.  The police did not question PW1 to what was the personal work that he had to go to Indore on 19/09/08? where did he stay at Indore? what was the means of transport that he used to reach Indore and at the hands of whom did he meet Indore? It had been revealed in the FSL report that there was human sperm contained in the panties (FSL Article A4) worn by the deceased, as well as in the blanket that the body was wrapped. Nevertheless, the police failed to forward the same to a DNA test as it should have.

According to the Appellant, Dr. Hemant Varma is familiar with senior officers in the police and with their assistance has committed fabricated evidence against the Appellant and got him implicated so that he can ruin his career, and so that he cannot study in the college, the Appellant has replied that PW1 Dr. Hemant Varma is vindictive towards him because of campus politics.

After discovering the original facts and making the unasked question by the trail court and the police investigation respectively, the case was found to be a fabricated one and the appellant is set at liberty immediately. At the rate of issuing compensation of 42 lakh to be paid by State.

Applicable Cases :

1. Reena Hazarika versus Assam vs State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289

Recent Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam repeats time and again the primordial duty of the court to deliver just trial. The fact was obvious in the judgment that it is necessary to examine such pieces of evidence and that they should always form a chain of events only to accuse the person accused. It then restated its previous stance that the courts are under obligation to ensure that the right of the accused to defend and contest the prosecution case without bias is guaranteed by the courts.

Applicance to the Chandresh Marskole Case:

In the case of Chandresh, the trial court failed the principles that Reena Hazarika describes. The situation that the prosecution rested on was very probable hysteria such as that in Section 27 memorandum and the unidentified threats by the heavy bedding. Nonetheless the trial court tended to ground their decision against this distorted history and sent the innocent man to jail. Such a sweet story did not persuade the High Court into its inebriation and by critiquing the evidence and highlighting fabrication the court went back to the propositions as made in Reena Hazarika.

2. M. Abbas v. Kerala Vs. State of Kerala 2001 10 SCC 103

True to this theme, in 2001, the Supreme Court gave a path breaking judgment in M. Abbas Jaising and Ors v. Suspicion, come what It may be, cannot fill the bill of the evidence of State of MP & Ors holding. Therefore the belief may not be based on assumptions alone and it is even forbidden to provide a tainted theoretical image in a bid of trying to fill the loopholes in the evidence.

Application on the case of Chandresh Marskole:

Chandresh was convicted based on certain possibly and speculations. PW1 calling the appellant a murderer because of suspicion and PW9 who claimed that the bedding was heavy was unbelievable anymore. This move of the High Court resonated with the rules contained in M. Abbas under which suspicion should not be considered evidence.

3. Case of Rudul Sah v. Baijnath Rishvroo Vrs State of Bihar II, ( 1983 ) 4 SCC 141

This constitutional law was a subset of the 1983 land mark case which stated a tariff to be provided at the instance of wrongful imprisonment and developmental justice as enshrined to Article 21 right. Therefore, the Supreme Court mentioned that monetary damages could be accepted as an atonement in unlawful imprisonment, which was also a crucial milestone on the road to receiving justice of the wrongfully convicted persons.

Application in regards to the Chandresh Marskole Case:

Advanced in the form of compensation to the High Court to Chandresh, the compensation (by the amount of 42 lakh INR) is directed under the guidelines stipulated in the case of Rudul Sah. However, considering the same with the case of Rudul Sah where uncompensated period of 4 years in jail leads to the psychological, emotional and social loss, the granted compensation to Chandresh does not seem to enough to reverse such effects that had followed 14 years false incarceration.

4. Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors.,(2012) 1 SCC 748

The Supreme Court in 2012 has provided guidance on their conduct that investigating officers should be neutral and the investigation that is carried must be complete and the bias, which presents the investigating agency at the forefront to obtain a prosecution, is eliminated. In the judgment, it was once again it was indicated that a just investigation is not possible without justice.

Application to The Case of Chandresh Marskole:

Hardeep singh has outlined some of the principles and perhaps these principles have been flouted through the investigations lapses on the case of chandresh. In this case, counselors failed to carry out proper cross examination, failed to put experts under examination and false evidence was presented to the court. These steps were crass contradictions to what the task of the investigations is, to find the thirst in the truth, not in the conviction.

5. Nilabati Behera versus. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.

This is the decision rendered in the year 1993 which brought the scope of Article 21 particularly that of the state to recompense the victim of custodial violence or any other one infringement of rights. The right to dignity to life which is in the view of the Court is actually equivalent to the right to life and it forms the basis that there has to be consequence when such a thing is not done.

Application in the Case of Chandresh Marskole:

Although Chandresh has not been a victim of custodial torture, he lost his umbrella of protection with regard to virtual imprisonment under article 21. It goes with the assimilation into the Nilabati Behera standard that the High Court admits these violations and compensates it again demonstrates the drawback of the compensation as the form of damage suffered is not reflected.

6. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) SCC 416-,1.

The rules were formulated in 1997, to prevent the act of torture and other inhuman factors including those that are degrading to an individual specifically by the law enforcements. This was done in the form of the guidelines oriented and introduced by D.K. Basu. The ruling stressed on both the liability as well as the behaviour of the law enforcers.

7. Nambi Narayanan against. Siby Mathew, (2018) 10 SCC 804

The present case of 2018 on Nambi Narayanan case went further and commuted the acquittal of a greater scientist in the country and condemned the erroneous prosecution which inoculates itself with reputation loss that cannot be cured. The other ruling made by the Court was ordering damages and emphasizing on aspect of responsibility.

Application to Chandresh Marskole Case:

The events of the story about Chandresh can be even compared with the situation of Nambi Narayanan. In either of the two, the falsely accused persons had their lives and career altered drastically. The tear-jerking film Rocketry: The Nambi Effect that won accolades was not just about the ordeal Nambi Narayanan and his wife went through, but more about how the system within the agency operates. This can also be clearly exhibited through the case of Chandresh and once again there is a need to change. We zapped the way highly skilled and talented Nambi was accused of being involved in corruption when it was he who worked on the science and technology of space sector like Chandresh who was itself featured to be a highly skilled medical student. Such narrations reveal the ruthless nature of relations of powers in institutions to ordinal powerless and defenseless individuals and their loved ones hence the reason why there should be even greater preventive measures against the misuse of powers.

Principles of the Constitution to be Lost: Present paper gives a worded analysis with references to the sources

In this paper, it is hoped to illustrate how institutional failure leads to breaching of constitutional safeguards by taking the case of Chandresh Marskole. The adoption pays much attention to such relevance as being responsible, being right in the form of being alert, and making sure that there are structural changes that will safeguard rights that are entrenched in the Indian Constitution.

1. Article 21: Liberty and freedom of Life

In Article 21, the matter of protection of life and personal liberty has been referred; keeping in view that, not even a single person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law and in accordance with law. The ancient cases have taken through the scope of Article 21, the Right to Livelihood with dignity, the Right to equal protection of Law – Right to a Speedy Trial, and The Right to be compensated in case of infringement of Fundamental Rights.

Case of Chandresh Marskole example:

The case of Chandresh being wrongly in prison in thirteen and a half years is a violation of Article 21 the worst it can get. Because of the negligence of the system, He was not given a right to live a decent life, a right to choose the direction in life. And this, it is owing to the High Court to which this case was appealed and which has recently quashed his conviction, is a reminder a reminder all the time of the protectorial office of the judiciary with regard to this basic freedom. Conversely, where there is no such condition as exists in the present case as afore said in the case of Nilabati Behera v. The judiciary too has realised the importance of compensation in offering one of the numerous viable remedies to violations of free exercise in offering a compensation claim. In this connection, even a sum of 42 lakh awarded to Chandresh can be considered as quite a hefty amount to make up the time and is not in the capacity of redeeming the lost years and the psychological and emotional torture in life and the trauma one goes through simply because of a miscarriage of justice.

Case Laws cited:

Maneka Gandhi v. The Article 21 also covers right to live with dignity in the Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

Case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746: A reasonable penalty that can render adequate safeguard to fundamental rights is a compensation to the infringement of the same.

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141: Established a base wherein it provides a compensatory relief to anyone who had been imprisoned wrongfully.

2. Article 14 Right to Equality

Equality is vowed in Article 14 and non-discrimination is incorporated; the Constitution also had the principle that all people will be equal before the law and to be shielded by laws of the nation regardless of their religion, race, Caste, sex or place of the birth. This paper also reminds the state about the constitutional requirement of being neutral and not to discriminate citizens.

Applying in the Case of Chandresh Marskole:

The High Court also made an additional observation that there is no doubt that the Scheduled Tribe status of Chandresh biases and caste based discriminations that he may have suffered. This realization of society was explicitly supported in the judgment by the following words: the situation that exists against members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the state is not only a notorious fact but does not necessitate the adducing of any extraneous evidence in order to prove the very same. The prevailing discrimination has not granted equity to the article 14 because vulnerable groups can be easily prejudiced and discriminated against by other social institutions in the courts. The argument of the case leads to the problems of justifications of the existence of structures protecting such groups and also ensuring proportionality in legal treatment.

The Case Laws used are:

State of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75: It has now been established that Equal protection of the law is established under Article 14.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217: Interpreted the structural obstacles that the internally disfranchised groups encountered and how there should be a policy to counter that.

3. Article 22; Protection Against Pipeline Arbitrary Arrest

Protective measures are provided to individuals against arbitrary arrest or detention in Article 22. It gives that as soon as anybody has been arrested, he must be notified of the reason of the arrest, taken before a magistrate within 24 hours and a lawyer of his choice must be allowed to be contacted.

Case: Chandresh Marskole:

The lapse of the procedural aspect and manufacture of evidence in the case of Chandresh appears to be a bald contravention of the Article 22. He did not interrogate the key witnesses diligently, he had devised a Section 27 memorandum, which was not present, and they had decided to ignore the key forensic evidence, which was not fair to the principles of the law about due process. Not only they make a dent on easy trust but also on the most fundamental principles listed in the Constitution. This is as implied in the case of D.K. Basu v. The State of West Bengal, criminal appeal No.280 of 1994, which was decided on 16.07.1997 1 SCC 416 stands on the contention that police must work as per the provisions of law only and must be bound by the law so that its mischievous exercise of powers is done away with. The case of Chandresh gives a clear look at what happens when all these policies are cast down the drain hence the necessity of maintaining polices which are related to police force.

Cited Case law:

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416: there are general policies put forward by the administration under Obama to restrain on police brutality by laying down general policies on arrest and detention.

Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260: Points out out possibilities of the restrained person to be notified about the arrest and intervention of courts.

The Chandresh Marskole case is a clear representation that protection mechanisms against infringement of constitutional rights, in as far as constitutional protection processes are concerned is not complete on paper when the statutory requirement of the institutions concerned are not seeked. Though the order of the High court gives a ray of hope to such people, it also brings visible the weaknesses of the structure that can lead to this type of violations.To the future practitioners of law who will handle a society where the relations between each other is ever dynamic, this case gives a clear definition of what the constitution must not lose when it comes to the rights of the people especially the marginalized group. It puts responsiveness to the questions, judicial vigilance, and typical adjustments to transform Articles 14, 21, 22 a thing other than an abstract article but experiences. It is the historical tool and the condition of the security of the basic human rights and the civil liberties. A job of lawyer can also have a lot of impact in this and as bearers of this career we need to see to it that this is fulfilled to every citizen.

Final Reflection

As shocking as the case of Chandresh Marskole is, one has to underscore that this is not just the story of one man and his imprisonment for a crime he was innocent of: no, it is much more, the story of how a justice system fails, year after year, time after time. I believe it has impacted me in a way far beyond spectators instead, as a law student who wants to become a fair, egalitarian and truthful attorney. This case draws the curtain on justice revealing how vulnerability it is when those charged with its delivery fail. With this, I leave this case comment feeling the enormity of the lessons this case came with. This is especially true after the strenuous work that the High Court has done to right a wrong that ought not to have occurred in the first instance; this gives hope, hope in the judiciary as the ultimate protection against tyranny. But it also puts a fire in my belly to seek more from a system that let this happen for 14 long years. This case cannot be one that was just left behind; it has to be the one that made us as the future legal professionals to make a stand, to rethink, to change the systems that allowed such things to happen.This case should act as a wakeup call to any justice system at all levels of the democratic countries. In my status as a law student I am given the opportunity and responsibility to build a new legal system of society where investigations are flawless, prosecutions are justice and courts are cautious enough to avoid injustices. This power is also seen best by the fact that Chandresh Marskole’s case is not just meant to make one empathize, but to make one act, change and fight for justice as a process that must be not only efficient, but fair and unending.

Justice has to be done, and justice has to be seen to be done; and it has to be done instantly.

An article in TheWEEK :

Slight smile on his face, shielding himself from the camera flashes and diffidently parrying questions on the case that has elicited interest across the country, Chandresh Marskole, 36, an ex-medical student, walked out of the Bhopal central jail on Monday evening, after being incarcerated close to 14 years for a murder that the MP High Court recently said, he did not commit.

“I am very happy to be out. I want to complete my medical degree and become a doctor to fulfill the dreams of my parents,” was the only statement Chandresh made to the media persons waiting outside the jail for his release.