The Rajasthan police did not conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused or collect their samples for a DNA test to match blood samples lifted from the crime scene, a local court in Merta said while acquitting 40 people accused of the murder of six persons, including five Dalits, in 2015.
According to the police charge sheet, nearly 200 people travelling on tractors and motorcycles attacked a camp set up by members of the Dalit Meghwal community on a disputed agricultural field. Five Dalits — Ratnaram, Pokharram, Pancharam, Khemaram and Ganpatram Meghwal — were killed, while 11 others were injured, including five women. Another person was also shot dead under suspicious circumstances.
While acquitting the accused, the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases said that the quality of witness testimonies and the investigation conducted by the police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were not sufficient.
“It is not proved which party initiated the incident of May 14, 2015, or whether any party was actually acting in private defence. This Court has only recorded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the absence of that right, which is a negative finding, and not a positive one,” the court said.
The court highlighted several major lapses, including the failure to conduct a TIP after the accused were arrested, failure to conduct DNA testing of the accused, and delay in the ballistic examination of the crime spot.
{{/usCountry}}The court highlighted several major lapses, including the failure to conduct a TIP after the accused were arrested, failure to conduct DNA testing of the accused, and delay in the ballistic examination of the crime spot.
{{/usCountry}}The court said the police failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade after the accused were arrested. One of victim Ratnaram’s sons told the court that he had informed the police of the names of all the accused, but those names were not recorded in the FIR. However, the court held that this allegation alone was insufficient to establish criminal liability.
The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) reported that no weapons were recovered from the crime scene. However, the victims’ side argued that the CFSL team visited the spot only on June 4, 2015 — 21 days after the incident.
Abdul Salim Ansari, counsel for the victims, said it was “unrealistic” to expect weapons to remain in an open field for such a long period. Ansari said when the police visited the scene after the incident, they recovered several objects, including sticks, an axe and a sharp-edged weapon bearing human blood.
The court said the forensic examination confirmed the presence of human blood belonging to at least three different blood groups on the recovered objects, establishing that a violent incident involving bloodshed had taken place.
However, the court said the local police failed to establish any “forensic connection” between the recovered weapons and the accused. The court said investigators did not conduct DNA testing of either the deceased or the injured victims. As a result, it could not be determined whose blood was found on the recovered weapons, making it impossible to link any accused to any specific injury or death.
“The FSL report did not find the blood of any of the injured or deceased on any weapon, as the blood grouping was inconclusive. Human blood was found on some of the exhibits. These findings are not contradictory but complementary. While human blood was detected on certain objects, the blood groups of the deceased and injured could not be determined conclusively, making it impossible to establish a match. In light of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (supra), this scientific evidence is limited to ‘objective facts’ and is unable to link any particular accused to any specific injury or death,” the court said.
The CBI, which was handed over the case within a few weeks of the incident, told the court that it had not recovered any weapons from any of the accused.
Ansari said not a single prosecution witness had turned hostile during the trial. He alleged that the investigation was weak from the very beginning and that instead of recording the victims’ version in the FIR, the police presented its own version. He alleged that some names were omitted while others were added later, creating doubts that persisted throughout the case.
Social activist Bhanwar Meghvanshi expressed concern over the acquittal and questioned both the prosecution and the investigation. “The prosecution’s case was weak from the very beginning, which raises serious questions. Even the investigating agencies failed to substantiate the evidence they themselves collected,” he said.
Govind Meghwal, a member of one of the victim’s families, said while the family respected the court’s verdict, they were deeply dissatisfied with the outcome. “Our witnesses gave truthful statements. We will challenge this decision before the high court,” he said.
Mahendra Chaudhary, counsel for the accused, welcomed the verdict and said the CBI had failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. He claimed that the disputed land did not belong to the complainant’s side but had been purchased by his clients.
He also rejected the prosecution’s claim that 250–300 people had arrived at the scene together, asserting that villagers reached the spot individually after receiving information about the incident. Chaudhary said that the 40 people who were made accused had no role in the violence and that the court’s verdict vindicated their innocence.
“It is not being held that the investigating agencies acted mala fide. The benefit is being granted not because of flaws in the investigation, but because the substantive evidence does not meet the required legal standard,” the court clarified.