LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Jasobanta Sahu vs. State of Orissa
Judgment Date: April 30, 2024
Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 349
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and questionable conduct of witnesses lead to the acquittal of an accused in a murder case? The Supreme Court recently addressed this crucial question in a case where the prosecution’s evidence was found to be unreliable. The Court overturned the conviction, highlighting the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Laxminarayan Sahu. The appellant, Jasobanta Sahu, was accused of fatally stabbing Laxminarayan Sahu on October 9, 1988, following a property dispute. The deceased, Laxminarayan Sahu, along with his brothers Brajabandhu Sahu (the appellant’s father) and Bhagaban Sahu, had a history of disputes regarding the division of family property. These disputes escalated after the death of their mother, who had been allotted a portion of land for her maintenance. On the day of the incident, Laxminarayan Sahu was ploughing his land when the appellant allegedly attacked him with a knife, resulting in his death at the scene. The police registered a First Information Report (FIR) based on information received at 3 PM on the same day.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 9, 1988 | Laxminarayan Sahu is murdered. Oral information received by Jarapada Police Station at 3 PM. FIR registered. |
| October 13, 1988 | Appellant, Jasobanta Sahu, is arrested. He leads to the discovery of the weapon (knife). |
| August 24, 1991 | Trial Court initially convicts the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to three years of imprisonment. |
| January 14, 2000 | High Court partly sets aside the Trial Court’s judgment, remitting the matter back for consideration under Section 302 of the IPC. |
| August 26, 2000 | Trial Court convicts the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. |
| July 17, 2014 | High Court dismisses the appeal and confirms the conviction and sentence. |
| March 25, 2022 | Supreme Court grants leave to appeal. |
| April 30, 2024 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and acquits the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment, considering his young age and relationship with the deceased. However, the informant, Hemanta Kumar Sahu (PW4), filed a Criminal Revision challenging the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court partly set aside the Trial Court’s judgment, remitting the matter back for consideration under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
, which defines the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
states that, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The case also involves an analysis of the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the concept of extra-judicial confession.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated in the crime due to land disputes.
- The appellant contended that the eyewitnesses, PW1 and PW2, were not credible and their testimonies were inconsistent.
- The appellant submitted that the extra-judicial confession to PW6 was not voluntary, cogent, or trustworthy.
- The appellant highlighted that the recovery of the weapon was from an open place and cannot be relied upon.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that both the Trial Court and the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence.
- The respondent contended that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The respondent submitted that the concurrent findings of the lower courts should not be interfered with.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Falsely Implicated | ✓ Land disputes led to false implication. | |
| Eyewitnesses Not Credible | ✓ PW1 and PW2’s testimonies were inconsistent. ✓ Conduct of PW1 and PW2 was suspicious. ✓ PW1’s statement was recorded 4-5 days after the incident. ✓ PW2 went to his ‘Taila’ for 5 days after the incident. |
✓ Both Trial Court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence. |
| Extra-Judicial Confession Untrustworthy | ✓ Confession to PW6 was not voluntary or trustworthy. | ✓ Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Recovery of Weapon Unreliable | ✓ Weapon was recovered from an open place. | ✓ Concurrent findings of lower courts should not be interfered with. |
Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in questioning the credibility of the eyewitnesses based on their unusual conduct after witnessing the crime and the delay in recording their statements. This highlighted the importance of the natural and probable behavior of witnesses in assessing their credibility.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues:
- Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) are credible and reliable.
- Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW6 is voluntary, cogent, and trustworthy.
- Whether the recovery of the weapon of offence can be relied upon for conviction.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. | No | The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and unreliability of the evidence. |
| Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) are credible and reliable. | No | The Court found the conduct of PW1 and PW2 to be abnormal and inconsistent, casting serious doubt on their credibility as eyewitnesses. |
| Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW6 is voluntary, cogent, and trustworthy. | No | The Court found the evidence of PW6 to be full of improvements and therefore unreliable. |
| Whether the recovery of the weapon of offence can be relied upon for conviction. | No | The Court held that the recovery of the weapon from an open place cannot be solely relied upon for conviction. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal and others [(2016) 16 SCC 418] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The Court relied on this case to define and discard the evidence of chance witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. |
| Puran v. State of Punjab [(1952) 2 SCC 454] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | This case was used to explain the defining attributes of a “chance witness.” |
| Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. [(2003) 12 SCC 377] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | This case was cited to discard the evidence of chance witnesses due to contradictions and omissions. |
| Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan [(2004) 10 SCC 632] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | This case was used to support the proposition that the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful ought to be discarded. |
| Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | This case was cited to support the proposition that the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful ought to be discarded. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that he was falsely implicated | Accepted due to lack of credible evidence. |
| Appellant’s submission that eyewitnesses were not credible | Accepted. Court found inconsistencies and abnormal conduct of PW1 and PW2. |
| Appellant’s submission that extra-judicial confession was not trustworthy | Accepted. Court found evidence of PW6 unreliable due to improvements. |
| Appellant’s submission that the recovery of weapon was unreliable | Accepted. Court found recovery from an open place not sufficient for conviction. |
| Respondent’s submission that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt | Rejected. Court found the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Respondent’s submission that the concurrent findings of the lower courts should not be interfered with | Rejected. Court found the lower courts’ findings unsustainable due to unreliable evidence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court relied on Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal and others [(2016) 16 SCC 418]* to discard the evidence of chance witnesses, whose presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful.
- The Supreme Court relied on Puran v. State of Punjab [(1952) 2 SCC 454]* to explain the defining attributes of a “chance witness.”
- The Supreme Court relied on Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B. [(2003) 12 SCC 377]* to discard the evidence of chance witnesses due to contradictions and omissions.
- The Supreme Court relied on Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan [(2004) 10 SCC 632]* and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719]* to support the proposition that the deposition of a chance witness, whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful, ought to be discarded.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials. The Court was particularly concerned with the inconsistencies and abnormal behavior of the eyewitnesses, PW1 and PW2. The fact that PW1’s statement was recorded 4-5 days after the incident and PW2 went to his ‘Taila’ for 5 days after witnessing the gruesome crime raised serious doubts about their credibility. The Court also noted that the extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was not trustworthy due to improvements in PW6’s testimony. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon from an open place was deemed insufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to ensure that convictions are based on solid, reliable evidence and not on mere suspicion or conjecture.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies | 40% |
| Abnormal conduct of eyewitnesses | 30% |
| Unreliable extra-judicial confession | 20% |
| Insufficient recovery of weapon | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The ratio of fact to law shows that the court gave more weight to the legal principles and precedents while determining the outcome of the case. However, the factual matrix of the case also weighed in the mind of the court, specifically the conduct of the witnesses.
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of credible evidence. The Court’s final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case. The Court stated:
“In the result, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”
“The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the Trial Court and as affirmed by the High Court are not sustainable in law.”
“The appellant is acquitted of all the charges charged with.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. Both judges concurred in the decision to acquit the appellant.
Key Takeaways
- Eyewitness testimonies must be consistent and credible. Any abnormal conduct or inconsistencies can cast doubt on their reliability.
- Extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary, cogent, and trustworthy. Improvements in testimony can render such confessions unreliable.
- Recovery of weapons from open places is not sufficient evidence for conviction.
- The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused.
- The judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that convictions are based on solid, reliable evidence, not on mere suspicion.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant 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 prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the evidence relied upon for conviction must be credible and reliable. This case reinforces the importance of scrutinizing eyewitness testimonies and extra-judicial confessions. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment reiterates the importance of the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Jasobanta Sahu highlights the critical role of credible evidence in criminal trials. By overturning the lower courts’ decisions, the Supreme Court underscored the principle that convictions must be based on solid, reliable evidence, not on mere suspicion. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that justice is served and that the rights of the accused are protected.