Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Contradictory Evidence: Subhash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: February 1, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 88

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Surya Kant, J., Vikram Nath, J.

Can inconsistencies in witness statements and medical evidence lead to the acquittal of the accused in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to significant contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The judgment highlights the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal trials. The bench consisted of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., who authored the judgment, along with Surya Kant, J., and Vikram Nath, J.

Case Background

The case stems from an incident on February 16, 2002, where Surender was fatally attacked. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Vedram (PW-1), the brother of the deceased, who stated that he was present at the scene of the crime. According to the FIR, the accused Rajaram, Rajesh, Subhash, and Rampal fired pistols at Surender, while Shiv Dayal attacked him with an axe and Gyanvati with a knife on his neck. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of Vedram (PW-1) and Jagdish (PW-2), an alleged eyewitness.

The Sessions Judge, Badaun, convicted Rajaram, Rajesh, Subhash, Rampal, Shiv Dayal, and Gyanvati under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Badaun, convicted the accused based on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 and the postmortem report. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the conviction, stating that the contradictions in the witness statements were minor. The accused then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case involves 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 prescribes the punishment for the offense of murder.
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” This section deals with the concept of constructive liability in cases of unlawful assembly, holding every member responsible for an offense committed by any member in furtherance of the common object.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Subhash and Gyanvati):

• Contradictory Witness Testimony: PW-1, Vedram, was also an accused in the murder of Rajesh’s father. It is unlikely he would have been spared if he was present at the scene during the assault on Surender.
• Material Improvements: PW-1’s statements showed material improvements when compared to the FIR and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Doubtful Eye Witness: PW-2, Jagdish, was a chance witness whose testimony was unreliable and inconsistent.
• Inconsistencies with Medical Evidence: The postmortem report showed only one firearm injury and one injury on the neck, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that multiple accused fired and attacked the deceased on the neck.
• Non-examination of Key Witness: The prosecution failed to examine Chetram, the deceased’s father, who was allegedly present at the scene.

Arguments on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• Minor Contradictions: The inconsistencies in PW-1’s statements were minor and did not affect his credibility.
• Reliability of PW-1: PW-1’s statement was consistent with the FIR, and the slight variations were due to the time gap between the incident and the deposition.
• PW-2 as a rustic villager: PW-2 was a rustic villager whose statement was recorded after four years of the incident, and the minor contradictions in his statement were not material enough to reject his testimony.
• Medical Evidence: The medical evidence supported PW-1’s statement that the shots were fired from close range.
• Participation of Gyanvati: Gyanvati’s involvement could not be doubted merely because she was a woman. Her assault on the deceased was consistent with medical evidence.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the main issue considered was:

1. Whether the contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, and the inconsistencies with medical evidence, warrant the acquittal of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books in this judgment. However, the Court did consider the following legal provisions:

• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.” The court considered the application of this section in the context of the charges against the accused.
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.” The court considered the evidence presented to determine if the accused committed the offense of murder.
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” The court considered the application of this section to determine if the accused were liable for the offenses committed by the unlawful assembly.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 148, IPC, Section 302, IPC, and Section 149, IPC but ultimately found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove the charges against the appellants.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The material improvements in PW-1’s testimony over the FIR and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, raised serious doubts about his credibility as an eyewitness.
• The inconsistent and unreliable nature of PW-2’s testimony further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• The postmortem report, which indicated only one firearm injury and one injury on the neck, directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that multiple accused fired and assaulted the deceased on the neck.
• The failure of the prosecution to examine Chetram, the deceased’s father, who was allegedly present at the scene, added to the doubts about the prosecution’s case.

The Court concluded that the contradictions were not minor but fundamental, going to the root of the prosecution’s case. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused, leading to their acquittal.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretations of the evidence presented by the prosecution but rejected them due to the fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this instance.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not reliable and consistent, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The majority opinion, authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., with the concurrence of Surya Kant, J., and Vikram Nath, J., found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not reliable and consistent, leading to the acquittal of the accused. There were no dissenting opinions.

The implications of this judgment are that the courts must carefully scrutinize witness testimonies and medical evidence to ensure that they are consistent and reliable. The judgment also underscores the importance of examining all material witnesses and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

“Analyzing the evidence of PW -1, it is apparent that there are material improvements which have been attempted in the course of the deposition over the case as set out in the FIR as well as in the course of the examination -in-chief.”

“On this state of the record, we are of the considered view that the presence of both PW -1 and PW -2 at the spot is gravely in doubt.”

“For the above reason, we are of the view that the accused -appellants Subhash (A-3) and Gyanvati (A -6) are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• Significant contradictions in witness testimonies and inconsistencies with medical evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize witness testimonies and medical evidence to ensure consistency and reliability.
• The failure to examine material witnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case.

This judgment reinforces the importance of a robust and reliable prosecution case in criminal trials. It emphasizes that inconsistencies in evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused, even in serious offenses like murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, Subhash (A-3) and Gyanvati (A-6), be released from custody unless they are wanted in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that material contradictions in witness testimonies and inconsistencies with medical evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This case reaffirms the existing legal principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials.

Conclusion

In the case of Subhash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, Subhash and Gyanvati, due to significant contradictions in the witness testimonies and inconsistencies with the medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. This judgment underscores the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal trials.