Supreme Court Acquits Accused in 1976 Murder Case Citing Doubtful Witness Testimony

Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 360
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a conviction be upheld when the key eyewitnesses fail to convincingly identify the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a decades-old murder case, ultimately acquitting the accused due to doubts about the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. This case highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials, especially when dealing with child witnesses and the identification of accused individuals. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a violent incident that occurred on April 16, 1976, stemming from political rivalry between the family of the deceased, Raghunath Singh, and members of the Ahir community, who had formed a political party called the Azad party. The prosecution alleged that a group of Ahirs attacked Raghunath Singh, leading to his death. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Shiv Raj Singh, the brother of the deceased. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of three eyewitnesses: PW-2, PW-3 (Krishna, the minor daughter of the deceased), and PW-4 (Kanwarbai, the mother of the deceased). The Trial Court discarded the testimony of PW-2 but convicted several accused based on the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellants’ counsel argued that the testimony of PW-3, a child witness, should be scrutinized carefully due to the possibility of tutoring. They highlighted inconsistencies in her identification of the accused and pointed out that PW-4 could not identify any of the accused in court. They also raised concerns about the three-day delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, suggesting that false implications might have occurred due to political rivalry.

The State’s counsel contended that PW-3 demonstrated good intelligence and understanding during preliminary questioning. They argued that her misidentification of one accused was a minor discrepancy and that PW-4’s inability to identify the accused by name was understandable due to the lapse of time. They maintained that the convictions by the lower courts were justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the testimony of the child witness (PW-3) was reliable and could be the basis for conviction.
2. Whether the inability of the other eye witness (PW-4) to identify the accused in court affected the prosecution’s case.
3. Whether the identification of the accused as assailants was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court did not specifically cite any case laws or legal provisions in the provided text.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4. The Court noted that PW-3, being a child witness, required careful evaluation, and her testimony was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and the unfair identification procedure. PW-4, despite claiming to know the accused, could not identify any of them in court. The Court concluded that the identity of the accused as the assailants of the deceased was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also held that the alleged recovery of weapons was not sufficient to sustain the conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible eyewitness testimony. The Court emphasized the unreliability of PW-3’s testimony, noting her confusion and the unfair identification process. The inability of PW-4 to identify any of the accused in court further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court also highlighted that the recovery of weapons alone was not sufficient for conviction in the absence of reliable eyewitness accounts.

The Supreme Court stated, “The manner in which the minor witness identified the accused, it becomes unsafe to convict the accused based only on her testimony.”

The Court further noted, “Thus, PW-4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their respective father’s name.”

The Court concluded, “We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The testimony of child witnesses must be evaluated with great care and circumspection.
• ✓ Identification of the accused in court is crucial for conviction.
• ✓ Convictions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of recovery of weapons without reliable eyewitness testimony.
• ✓ The benefit of doubt must go to the accused when there is a lack of credible evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of the appellants and set aside the impugned judgments and orders. The appellants were acquitted of the charges, and their bail bonds were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a child witness must be evaluated with great care and circumspection and that the identification of the accused in court is crucial for conviction. The court reiterated that convictions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of recovery of weapons without reliable eyewitness testimony. This case reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when there is a lack of credible evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused in this case underscores the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony and the need for a fair identification process. The Court emphasized that convictions cannot be based on doubtful evidence, especially when dealing with child witnesses. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of protecting the rights of the accused.