Supreme Court acquits accused in dacoity-murder case due to lack of evidence: Hari Om vs. State of U.P. (2021) INSC 1

Date of the Judgment: 05 January 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 1

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can a conviction be upheld based on the testimony of a child witness alone, especially when there are inconsistencies and a lack of corroborating evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning a dacoity and murder case. The court ultimately acquitted the accused, highlighting the importance of reliable evidence and the need for corroboration, especially in cases involving child witnesses. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of four members of a family in Nagla Mirja Bada, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, on the night of October 27-28, 2008. The victims were Smt. Nirdosh Devi, her daughter Ku. Poonam, and her sons Ashish and Anshul. The initial report was filed by Kotwal Singh, the brother-in-law of the deceased, on October 28, 2008. He reported that his sister-in-law was murdered by slitting her throat, while the others were murdered by strangulation. The house was also looted of cash and jewelry. The police registered a case against unknown persons, initiating an investigation.

The investigation led to the arrest of six individuals: Sanjay @ Sonu, Rijwan, Haseen Khan, Hari Om @ Hero, Saurabh @ Sanju, and Rafique @ Bhaiye. These individuals were apprehended on October 29, 2008, while traveling in a red Tavera vehicle. Various weapons and articles were recovered from their possession, including a mobile phone belonging to the deceased Smt. Nirdosh Devi. A knife was also recovered at the instance of accused Hari Om. The youngest child of the deceased, Ujjwal, was found alive at the scene, though he was initially in shock and unable to provide a statement.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all six accused under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to dacoity with murder. Hari Om @ Hero was awarded the death penalty, while the other five were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Trial Court acquitted all accused of other charges under Section 412 of the IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The case was then referred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Hari Om, Sanjay @ Sonu, and Saurabh @ Sanju, while acquitting Haseen Khan, Rafique @ Bhaiye, and Rijwan. The High Court cited insufficient evidence and lack of proper identification for the acquittal of the three accused. Consequently, Hari Om, Sanjay @ Sonu, and Saurabh @ Sanju appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their convictions and sentences.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with dacoity with murder. It states that if any of the persons committing dacoity commits murder in so committing dacoity, every person engaged in that dacoity shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity. It states that whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong to a gang of dacoits, any property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section deals with offenses of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for offences related to possessing illegal arms.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Accused):

• The testimony of PW5 Ujjwal, the child witness, was unreliable due to glaring inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
• There was no proper link evidence to confirm that the fingerprints were correctly lifted from the crime scene and preserved before being sent for expert analysis.
• The fingerprint evidence alone was insufficient to sustain the conviction of Sanjay @ Sonu and Saurabh @ Sanju, especially without any substantive evidence.
• Given the acquittal of three out of six accused, the remaining three could not be convicted under Section 396 of the IPC, as the offense requires a minimum of five individuals.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The testimony of PW5 Ujjwal was reliable and corroborated on material particulars, making it a valid basis for conviction.
• The evidence of the child witness should be considered with caution and prudence, and if found reliable, can be the basis of conviction.
• The prosecution’s case was supported by the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons and stolen articles from the accused.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the testimony of PW5 Ujjwal, the child witness, was reliable enough to form the basis of the conviction of the accused, particularly given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
2. Whether the fingerprint evidence was sufficient to link the accused Sanjay @ Sonu and Saurabh @ Sanju to the crime, in the absence of any substantive evidence.
3. Whether the conviction under Section 396 of the IPC was sustainable given the acquittal of three of the six accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

[TABLE] of Issues and Court’s Treatment

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 748] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that fingerprint evidence is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate other substantive evidence.
• Ram Shankar Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR (1956) SC 441] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the requirement of a minimum number of individuals for a conviction under Section 396 of the IPC.
• Saktu and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1973) 1 SCC 202] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the requirement of a minimum number of individuals for a conviction under Section 396 of the IPC.
• Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka [(2001) 9 SCC 129] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to discuss the principles of evaluating the testimony of a child witness, emphasizing that corroboration is a measure of caution and prudence, not a strict rule.
• State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Master and Others [(2010) 12 SCC 324] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to discuss the principles of evaluating the testimony of a child witness.
• Manmeet Singh alias Goldie vs. State of Punjab [(2015) 7 SCC 167] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to discuss the principles of evaluating the testimony of a child witness.
• Panchhi vs. State of U.P. [(1998) 7 SCC 177] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the need for careful evaluation of child witness testimony due to their susceptibility to tutoring.
• Prakash vs. State of M.P. [(1992) 4 SCC 225] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the need for corroboration of child witness testimony.
• Baby Kandayanathil vs. State of Kerala [1993 Supp (3) SCC 667] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the need for corroboration of child witness testimony.
• Raja Ram Yadav vs. State of Bihar [(1996) 9 SCC 287] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the need for corroboration of child witness testimony.
• Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 5 SCC 341] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the need for corroboration of child witness testimony.
• State of U.P. vs. Ashok Dixit [(2000) 3 SCC 70] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the need for corroboration of child witness testimony.
• Digamber Vaishnav and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 4 SCC 522] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the unreliability of child witness testimony when the witness did not disclose the accused’s names in the first instance.
• Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 5 SCC 389] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the unreliability of child witness testimony due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
• Prakash vs. State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 133] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited regarding the importance of proper procedure for collecting and preserving fingerprint evidence.
• Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [(1977) 2 SCC 99] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient for conviction.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
• Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
• Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

[TABLE] of Authorities and Court’s Use

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 748]* to emphasize that fingerprint evidence is not substantive evidence.
• The Court considered Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka [(2001) 9 SCC 129]* to discuss the principles of evaluating child witness testimony, but distinguished the facts of the case.
• The Court cited Digamber Vaishnav and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 4 SCC 522]* and Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 5 SCC 389]* to highlight the unreliability of child witness testimony when there are inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
• The Court referred to Prakash vs. State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 133]* to emphasize the importance of following proper procedures for collecting and preserving fingerprint evidence.
• The Court cited Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [(1977) 2 SCC 99]* to emphasize that fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient for conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Unreliable Testimony of Child Witness: The court found the testimony of PW5 Ujjwal to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration, making it an unreliable basis for conviction.
• Insufficient Fingerprint Evidence: The court held that fingerprint evidence alone, without proper procedure and substantive evidence, was insufficient to convict the accused.
• Lack of Corroborating Evidence: The court noted the absence of corroborating evidence to support the prosecution’s case, which further weakened the allegations against the accused.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence, especially when dealing with child witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a child witness must be carefully scrutinized, and corroboration is essential for conviction.
• Fingerprint evidence alone is not sufficient for conviction without proper procedure and corroborating evidence.
• The prosecution must present a strong and reliable case with substantive evidence to secure a conviction.
• Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused, Hari Om, Sanjay @ Sonu, and Saurabh @ Sanju, be set at liberty unless their custody is required in connection with any other offense.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a child witness, if inconsistent and uncorroborated, cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Further, fingerprint evidence, without proper procedure and substantive evidence, is insufficient for conviction. This judgment reinforces the importance of reliable evidence and the need for corroboration in criminal cases, particularly those involving child witnesses and circumstantial evidence. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but a reaffirmation of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted Hari Om, Sanjay @ Sonu, and Saurabh @ Sanju, setting aside their convictions and sentences. The court found the testimony of the child witness unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court also held that fingerprint evidence alone was insufficient for conviction. The judgment underscores the importance of reliable evidence and the need for corroboration, especially in cases involving child witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Evidence Law
• Child Witness Testimony
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Fingerprint Evidence
• Section 396, Indian Penal Code
• Section 412, Indian Penal Code

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section396
• Section 412