Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Culpable Homicide Case: Kumar vs. State (2018) INSC 423

Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 423
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused and when there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, overturning the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court found that the prosecution had suppressed key facts and failed to provide a coherent narrative, ultimately acquitting the accused. The judgment was authored by Justice N.V. Ramana, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on August 20, 2009, in a village. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Kumar, had a prior altercation with the deceased, Sakthivel, during a village festival. On the day of the incident, Kumar allegedly initiated a quarrel with Rajendran (PW-1), the brother-in-law of the deceased, at a tea stall. When Arumugham (PW-2) intervened, Kumar assaulted him with a wooden log. Sakthivel then intervened, and Kumar allegedly pushed him into a canal and struck him on the head with the log, leading to Sakthivel’s death. The accused, Kumar, also sustained injuries during the incident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the accused, Kumar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for culpable homicide amounting to murder and Section 324 of the IPC for causing hurt with dangerous weapons, sentencing him to life imprisonment and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code: This section addresses voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s (Accused’s) Arguments:

• The prosecution fabricated the case to implicate the appellant and concealed the actual circumstances.
• The motive ascribed to the appellant was false, as there was no prior complaint from the deceased or his wife.
• There was a significant delay in registering the FIR, which was done to implicate the appellant.
• The police initially suspected PWs 1 to 3 to be the real culprits and took them into custody.
• The appellant was also injured in the fight, but the police did not register a complaint based on the actual events.
• The police colluded with the complainant to frame the appellant after his discharge from the hospital.
• The trial court initially charged the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC but convicted him under Section 324 of the IPC.
• The courts below failed to appreciate the suppression of facts by the prosecution and did not evaluate the evidence properly.

Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments:

• The trial court properly assessed the facts and delivered a reasoned judgment.
• The conviction and sentence passed against the accused were affirmed by the High Court with categorical findings, which do not require interference.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the issues can be determined from the judgment as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution’s case was fabricated to implicate the appellant?
2. Whether there was an unexplained delay in registering the FIR?
3. Whether the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the crime and the injuries sustained by the accused?
4. Whether the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and suppression of facts by the prosecution, the failure to explain the injuries on the accused, and the flawed investigation conducted by the police. The Court emphasized that the criminal justice system must be above reproach and that the investigating authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair and neutral manner. The Court noted that when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, it raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s version of events.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court found that the prosecution’s case was based on a fabricated narrative. The Court noted that the police had suppressed the initial statements of witnesses and failed to account for the injuries sustained by the accused. The Court also criticized the lower courts for not properly appreciating the evidence and for acting perversely. The court stated, “The criminal justice must be above reproach. It is irrelevant whether the falsity lie in the statement of witnesses or the guilt of the accused. The investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair manner and elicit truth.” The Court also highlighted, “In this case at hand, we cannot close our eyes to what has happened; regardless of guilt or the asserted persuasiveness of the evidence, the aspect wherein the police has actively connived to suppress the facts, cannot be ignored or overlooked.” The Court further stated, “From the evidence of I.O.—PW24 it is apparent that in the scuffle PW2 (Arumugham) received “simple” injuries and he had taken the statement of Dr. Lavanya (PW17) who treated PW2. He had also examined Dr. Illayaraj (PW18) who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. But, in the case of accused—appellant, PW24—I.O. admits that he was aware of the fact that the accused-appellant was admitted as in-patient and the accused-appellant had sustained injuries. He further states that neither did he arrest the accused nor he examined the Doctor in regard to the injuries of accused.”

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must provide a coherent and consistent narrative, explaining all aspects of the case, including injuries on the accused.
• The investigating authorities have a responsibility to conduct a fair and neutral investigation, without suppressing facts.
• Courts must critically evaluate the evidence and not rely solely on the prosecution’s version of events.
• Failure to explain injuries on the accused can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Suppression of facts by the police can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused, who was in jail, be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must present a credible and complete account of the incident, and must not suppress any material facts, including injuries sustained by the accused. The Court reiterated the importance of a fair and neutral investigation and emphasized that the criminal justice system must be above reproach. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that any inconsistencies or suppression of facts can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This case does not change the existing position of law but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kumar vs. State (2018) INSC 423 highlights the importance of a fair and thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to present a complete and consistent narrative. The Court overturned the concurrent findings of the lower courts, acquitting the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries on the accused, suppression of facts, and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that the judiciary plays in ensuring that justice is served and that the rights of the accused are protected.