Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Jitendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) INSC 20 (5 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 5 January 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 20
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a dying declaration without corroborative evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused were convicted based on a dying declaration and the testimony of an alleged eyewitness. The Court, after examining the evidence, overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for corroboration of a dying declaration, especially when the circumstances surrounding it are questionable. This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough and unbiased assessment of evidence in criminal trials.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of one Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav, who was allegedly assaulted on 8 June 2007, around 8:45 PM near Machchu Hotel in Jabalpur. The prosecution alleged that four individuals, namely Manja alias Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, Gledwin alias Banti Isai, and Ajay alias Ajayya, attacked Pappu with knives and other weapons. The incident was reported to the deceased’s brother, Rajkumar Yadav, and mother, Usha Rani Yadav, who found Pappu in a pool of blood. They took him to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the accused. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants, Manja @ Amit Mishra, passed away. The Supreme Court then heard the appeal on behalf of the remaining appellants.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is also relevant, as it addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The court also considered the concept of a ‘dying declaration’ and its evidentiary value.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the oral dying declaration of the deceased and the testimony of one alleged eyewitness. The defense argued that the dying declaration was unreliable due to the circumstances under which it was made and the lack of corroboration. They also questioned the credibility of the eyewitness.

• Prosecution’s Arguments:
  • The deceased, Pappu Yadav, made a dying declaration to his mother and brother, identifying the accused as his assailants.
  • Rahul Yadav (PW-13), an eyewitness, testified that he saw the accused attacking Pappu.
  • The injuries sustained by the deceased were severe, leading to his death.
• Defense’s Arguments:
  • The dying declaration was made when the deceased was in critical condition, and it is doubtful whether he was in a position to speak.
  • There was a delay between the incident and the time when the dying declaration was allegedly made.
  • The eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13), was not a reliable witness due to his criminal background and inconsistent statements.
  • The FIR mentions Virendra and Amit Jha as eyewitnesses who did not support the prosecution’s case.
  • The prosecution failed to establish the presence of the deceased at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged dying declaration.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The defense innovatively questioned the reliability of the dying declaration by highlighting the time gap and the deceased’s critical condition, along with the dubious nature of the eyewitness testimony.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified based on the evidence on record.
2. Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased was reliable and could be the sole basis for conviction.
3. Whether the testimony of the alleged eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13), was credible and could be relied upon.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it emphasized the principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the need for corroboration of a dying declaration and the importance of credible eyewitness testimony.

Judgment

The court did not cite any specific authorities. The court relied on general principles of criminal jurisprudence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence to support the prosecution’s case. The court found the dying declaration unreliable due to the circumstances under which it was made and the absence of corroborating evidence. The testimony of the alleged eyewitness was also deemed untrustworthy. The court emphasized that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and the lack of reliable evidence. While legal principles were considered, the factual aspects of the case played a more significant role in the final decision.

The court stated, “We are conscious of the fact that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.”

The court further noted, “In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the courts below ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants.”

The court concluded, “Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence of the appellants are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside by granting the benefit of doubt. They stand acquitted and are set free.”

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused, granting them the benefit of doubt. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that a dying declaration must be corroborated by other evidence, especially if there are doubts about its reliability. The court also found the eyewitness testimony to be unreliable.

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it is corroborated by other credible evidence.
• The credibility of an eyewitness is crucial, and their testimony must be thoroughly scrutinized, especially if they have a criminal background or make inconsistent statements.
• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
• Appellate courts can interfere with convictions if the evidence is insufficient or if a different plausible view can be taken.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the release of the appellants, who were on bail, and discharged their bail bonds.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, especially when made under questionable circumstances, requires corroboration by other credible evidence to sustain a conviction. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jitendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the importance of a thorough and unbiased assessment of evidence in criminal trials. The court’s emphasis on the need for corroboration of a dying declaration and the scrutiny of eyewitness testimony underscores the principles of justice and fairness. This judgment serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid evidence and not on mere suspicion or conjecture.