In a strongly worded rebuke, the Supreme Court has chastised the Bihar trial court, law enforcement agencies, the public prosecutor, and the Patna High Court for their handling of a case involving a death-row inmate convicted of the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl. The bench, comprised of Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed profound dismay and astonishment at the proceedings in the lower courts, particularly the Patna High Court, which appeared to presume the appellant's guilt without sufficient scrutiny.

The case revolves around the conviction and imposition of the death penalty on Munna Pandey, who stands accused of these grave crimes. In 2018, the Patna High Court upheld his conviction, following a verdict by a Bhagalpur Sessions Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's censure is rooted in multiple disparities observed in witness statements and the failure to adequately address the role of the co-accused, Pritam Tiwari. Witnesses consistently maintained that Pritam Tiwari had taken the victim to his house to watch television on the day of the incident. However, this pivotal detail was not sufficiently explored during the trial.

The Court also highlighted the shortcomings of the defense counsel, public prosecutor, and trial judge in challenging witnesses with their prior police statements, as mandated by the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the absence of a forensic laboratory report and a medical examination of the accused, despite the case relying on circumstantial evidence, raised additional concerns.

The Supreme Court underscored that the crux of a fair trial lies in uncovering the truth, ensuring that the guilty are penalized while the innocent are shielded from wrongful conviction. The Court emphasized that the criminal justice system must strive to achieve this objective with fairness and impartiality toward all parties involved.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court allowed the accused's appeal and instructed the Patna High Court to reevaluate the case. The Court also acknowledged that the accused had spent a significant nine years in custody, the majority of which were on death row, urging the High Court to expedite the appeals process. Furthermore, the High Court was directed to appoint an experienced criminal lawyer to represent the accused.

The Supreme Court registry received orders to distribute a copy of this ruling to all High Courts, with a requirement to subsequently forward it to their respective district courts.

Case Title: Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar