Shillong, Jan 31: Three court orders on the mysterious death of St Anthony’s College student, 21-year-old Biplas Das, 20 years ago, have left the question open as to how the victim died.
Biplab from Silchar was an undergraduate mass communication student at the college in 2006.
The Supreme Court had, on January 27, upheld the trial court order acquitting the accused Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa and Boney Lyngdoh Phawa after the High Court had convicted them in 2023.
Biplap went missing on February 18, 2006, and his body was recovered on February 21 from Mawlai Mawroh graveyard.
Later, a rope was also recovered.
The trial court, headed by the then Additional Judge M Skhemlon, acquitted Bernard and Boney on March 26, 2019, stating the prosecution only depended on the last seen theory and circumstantial evidence as the duo were with the victim.
The trial court had examined 34 witnesses..
After the prosecution challenged the acquittal, the then High Court division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh had on September 27, 2023, convicted the accused for murder and concealing evidence.
The punishment was life imprisonment for both the accused after reversing the order of the trial court.
However, the Supreme Court’s division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled out the last seen theory as the only evidence to convict the accused.
The confessional statements of the accused were not corroborated.
Moreover, the police did not investigate the ransom calls; they remained a puzzle.
SC observations
The court pointed out that while the confession of the accused was made on March 8, 2006, the signature of the magistrate was on March 9, 2006.
The accused were also not asked whether they needed the assistance of a lawyer while recording a confessional statement by the magistrate.
The court observed that in the post-mortem report, it was categorically stated by the doctor that ‘the hyoid bone was found broken at both sides, which could happen in a strangulation suspending the body, that is, by hanging. It was also opined that it could be a case of suicide by hanging in the instant case, especially since the larynx of the deceased was found intact and not broken, which could happen in the case of strangulation.
According to the court, on the theory of last seen together, it cannot but notice that there is no proof of the deceased having been seen together with the accused immediately before the death occurred.
“We say this even though there is no clear-cut time specified on which the death occurred, when it is trite that the last seen together theory projected by the prosecution should be proximate to the death of the victim”, the court said.
Even the prosecution’s story that the victim was in the company of the accused on the evening of 18.02.2006 is not established in the trial. It is the roommates of the deceased who informed Public Witness (PW) 1 (RK Purkayastha) that they were told by a friend of the deceased that he was going to meet accused 1(Bernard) in the evening. The roommates of the deceased were not examined, but the friend to whom the deceased talked about the meeting in the evening was examined as PW6 (Nirvika Singhania)
PW6 deposed that she was a close friend of the deceased and they also did projects together, for which reason the laptop of the deceased was entrusted to her. PW6 stated that the deceased had rung her up in the course of
the day, i.e., on 18.02.2006, to tell her that he would be collecting the laptop later and also that he would be meeting
A1 in the evening. “This is not in proof of the victim having been seen with the accused in the evening”, the court said.
After hearing the counsels of both parties, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and restored that of the trial court, which acquitted the accused.
The order of the trial court
On February 19, 2006, Rakhal Kumar Purkayastha, a professor of the college and local guardian, lodged a complaint that Biplap went missing from Police Bazar on February 18, around 8 pm. He was last seen in Police Bazar with his friend Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa.
By the evening of February 19, one of the search parties discovered a PCO in Mawroh from where Biplab had called his friend Nirvika Singhania at or about 8:30 pm on February 18.
According to the initial inquiry, the victim was suspected to be lured and kidnapped by miscreants from Mawlai Mawroh, and hence the case was registered and investigated. Police arrested Bernard and subsequently Boney Lyngdoh Phawa. From Boney’s house, a wrist watch and a pair of spectacles were recovered. Later, another accused, Akbar Qureshi, was arrested.
Later, the mobile phone and the purse of the victim were recovered from the house of Ayub Kharkongor of Lum Shyiap. On being led by Boney, one rope from Raid Pynthor was also recovered.
The body was exhumed from Mawroh for inquest and post-mortem.
After the completion of the investigation, Bernard, Boney and Akbar were chargesheeted.
Akbar was discharged on the benefit of doubt by the court on 13.7.2006.
Earlier, the police had traced a ransom call made to the father of the victim from a PCO in Paltan Bazar, Guwahati.
The trial court observed that the investigation officer did not ask for call details, and they were not submitted to the court. The owner of the PCO was also not called to prove the same. The call was made from Guwahati on February 19, and on the same day, Bernard was arrested and hence the identity of the caller was not established.
Friends of Biplap had informed Purkayastha about the missing incident on February 19 stating that on February 18 evening, he was seen with Bernard at Police Bazar as told by Nirvika Singhania who had received a telephone call of Bernard from a PCO in Mawroh on the previous night stating that he was with some friends from Siliguri and hence will collect his laptop from her the next day.
Sources said that whether Biplap was seen with Bernard and Boney or not on February 18, the mystery continues as to what caused the death of the victim.
