Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Based on Unreliable Witness Testimony: Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: June 3, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 504
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Hima Kohli, J.
Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. This case underscores the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal trials. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice Hima Kohli concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on June 12, 1994, when Bhagat Singh was murdered. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged based on the oral report of Amol Singh (P.W.6), the brother of the deceased. Amol Singh stated that he, along with his brother Bhagat Singh and Akhe Singh (PW-4), were walking towards their village after getting off a bus. According to Amol Singh’s FIR, at around 7:00 PM, in village Ratanpur, he heard his brother cry out. Upon turning, he saw Shambhu Rajput attacking Bhagat Singh with a ballam (spear). He further stated that other accused, Santosh, Lakhan, Mahendra, and Pritam, also assaulted Bhagat Singh with ballams, while Padam Singh hit him with a rod, and Dashrat Singh struck him with a lathi (baton). Amol Singh and Akhe Singh fled the scene and later returned with others to find Bhagat Singh dead. The motive, according to Amol Singh, was previous enmity.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against 11 accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court acquitted six of the eleven accused but convicted Mahendra Singh, Pritam Singh, Santosh, Shambhu Singh, and Lakhan Singh under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed their appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, the convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon”. This section deals with the offense of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder”. This section specifies the punishment for committing murder.
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object”. This section outlines that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offense.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (Accused):

• The primary argument of the appellants was that their conviction was solely based on the testimony of Amol Singh (P.W.6), who is the brother of the deceased. They contended that his testimony should be viewed with caution due to his relationship with the victim.
• The defense argued that the evidence of Mahendra Singh (P.W.3), Akhe Singh (P.W.4), Mobat Singh (D.W.3), and Kok Singh Raghuvanshi (D.W.4) suggests that Amol Singh (P.W.6) could not have witnessed the incident.
• The appellants also raised doubts about the authenticity of the FIR, suggesting it might have been delayed, thereby casting a shadow on the prosecution’s case. They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras [(1957) SCR 981] to argue that the testimony of Amol Singh (P.W.6) falls under the category of a “wholly unreliable” witness.

Respondent’s Arguments (State):

• The State argued that the Trial Court and the High Court rightly relied on the testimony of Amol Singh (P.W.6).
• They submitted that minor inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony should not be grounds to reject the entire testimony. The State argued that the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India.
• The State contended that the courts should separate the truth from the falsehood in a witness’s testimony. They relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt) vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another [(2003) 7 SCC 749], State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy alias Rama Krishna Reddy and others [(2018) 7 SCC 623], and Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab and others [(2018) 16 SCC 475].

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense innovatively used the testimonies of the defense witnesses to cast doubt on the presence of the complainant at the scene of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants, based primarily on the testimony of Amol Singh (P.W.6), is sustainable, considering the doubts raised about his presence at the scene of the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras [(1957) SCR 981]* to classify Amol Singh’s testimony as “wholly unreliable”.
• The Court distinguished Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt) vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another [(2003) 7 SCC 749]*, State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy alias Rama Krishna Reddy and others [(2018) 7 SCC 623]*, and Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab and others [(2018) 16 SCC 475]*, stating that those cases were not applicable to the facts of the present case, where the witness was found to be wholly unreliable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the unreliability of the key witness, Amol Singh (P.W.6). The court emphasized that the testimony of Amol Singh was contradicted by other witnesses, who stated that they had informed Amol Singh about the death of his brother. The court also noted that the medical evidence only established that the death was homicidal but did not corroborate Amol Singh’s claim of witnessing the crime. The court also stated that the motive alone cannot be the basis of conviction.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the medical evidence corroborated Amol Singh’s testimony, stating, “The medical evidence could only establish that the death was homicidal. However, it could not have been used to corroborate the version of Amol Singh (P.W.6) that he has witnessed the incident.” The court also emphasized that, “only because motive is established, the conviction cannot be sustained.” The Court held that, “the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a witness must be reliable to form the basis of a conviction.
• The court must carefully scrutinize the testimony of a witness who is closely related to the victim.
• Corroboration of a witness’s testimony by medical evidence must be direct and not merely circumstantial.
• Motive alone cannot be the basis for conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The appeals are allowed.
• The judgments of the High Court and Trial Court are quashed and set aside.
• The appellants are acquitted of the charges.
• The appellants are to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful and whose testimony is contradicted by other evidence. This case reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and that the testimony of a witness must be reliable to form the basis of a conviction. The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle laid down in Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras [(1957) SCR 981] regarding the classification of witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. highlights the critical importance of reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal trials. By acquitting the accused, the Court underscored that a conviction cannot stand solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful and whose testimony is contradicted by other evidence. This judgment serves as a reminder that the quality of evidence is paramount and that courts must exercise caution when evaluating witness testimonies, especially when the witness is closely related to the victim and there are contradictions in the evidence.