Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Identification Evidence: Surya Vir vs. State of Haryana (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 3 February 2022
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.951 of 2022) (@ Diary No(s).19963 of 2020)
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of witness testimonies that rely on rumors and lack a proper identification parade? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Surya Vir vs. State of Haryana. The Court overturned the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of reliable identification evidence in criminal cases.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Rajinder alias Raju on October 1, 2008, at approximately 6:00 PM. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Om Prakash (PW-12), the father of the deceased, at the City Police Station, Jind. According to the FIR, Om Prakash’s wife, Janki Devi (PW-15), had informed him that two young men had come to their house the previous day, inquiring about their son, Raju. The next day, while Om Prakash and Janki Devi were on their way to the market, they saw Raju coming from the direction of Bharat Cinema. A white car with three occupants stopped near Raju, and two of the occupants shot him. The assailants were identified as Suryavir, Devender alias Dhola, and Pardeep. Rajinder died on the way to the hospital.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Suryavir and Devender under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upheld this decision. Devender’s Special Leave Petition was initially rejected by the Supreme Court. However, Suryavir’s appeal was later considered, leading to the present judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Additionally, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, concerning the possession of illegal firearms, was also relevant.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[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.”

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 states:
“Punishment for certain offences.—(1) Whoever—(a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 7; or (b) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 7; or (c) has in his possession any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7; or (d) imports or exports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or (e) sells or transfers any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or (f) contravenes any other provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

The appellant, Suryavir, argued that:

• 
  The First Information Report (FIR) was based on rumors, not direct knowledge, and the source of this information was not disclosed or proven.
• 
  The witnesses contradicted their initial statements about the mode of transport used by the assailants, stating initially that the assailants came in a white car, but later claiming they arrived on motorcycles.
• 
  The incident of the previous day, where two men came to the house, was not mentioned by PW-15, Janki Devi, and it was not established that those men were the same as the accused.
• 
  A test identification parade was not conducted, which would have provided greater assurance about the identity of the assailants.
• 
  The alleged enmity and suspicion against Kamaljeet and Kuldip were not investigated.

The State of Haryana argued that:

• Two courts had consistently convicted the accused, and the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition of the co-accused, Devender.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the nature of the evidence presented, particularly concerning the identification of the assailants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• 
  Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 708 (Supreme Court of India): This case was relied upon to extend the benefit of acquittal to the co-accused, Devender, whose Special Leave Petition had been previously dismissed.
• 
  Harbans Singh vs. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 101 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the Court’s inherent power to rectify manifest injustice, even after the dismissal of a co-accused’s appeal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Suryavir, acquitting him of all charges. The Court emphasized that the identification of the accused by the witnesses was unreliable, as it was based on rumors and not direct knowledge. The lack of a test identification parade and the contradictory statements about the mode of transport further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court also considered the case of the co-accused, Devender, whose Special Leave Petition had been dismissed earlier. Relying on Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] and Harbans Singh vs. State of U.P. [CITATION], the Court recalled its earlier order dismissing Devender’s petition and extended the benefit of acquittal to him as well.

The Court observed:

• 
  “It is quite clear that PW-12 and PW-15 were not aware of the identity of the assailants. Their source of information was rumours, on the basis of which an assertion about the identity of the appellant was made in the first information report.”
• 
  “Though the witnesses had never disclosed the identity of the assailants on the basis of their own knowledge, even, in order to check whether they had really seen the assailants, test identification parade ought to have been conducted.”
• 
  “That leaves us with subsidiary evidence regarding recovery, which in the absence of substantive evidence, by itself would not be sufficient.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of reliable identification evidence. The fact that the witnesses’ identification was based on rumors rather than direct observation, coupled with the absence of a test identification parade, created significant doubt about the prosecution’s case. The Court also considered the contradictory statements made by the witnesses regarding the mode of transport used by the assailants. The Court was also swayed by the fact that the co-accused’s case was on the same footing as that of the appellant and therefore, the benefit of acquittal ought to be extended to the co-accused as well.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• 
  Identification of accused persons must be based on direct knowledge and observation, not on rumors or hearsay.
• 
  Test identification parades are crucial for verifying witness claims, especially when the witnesses do not know the accused beforehand.
• 
  Contradictory statements by witnesses can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
• 
  Subsidiary evidence, such as the recovery of weapons, is insufficient without substantive evidence linking the accused to the crime.
• 
  The Supreme Court can exercise its inherent power to prevent manifest injustice, even after the dismissal of a co-accused’s appeal.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the release of both Suryavir and Devender from custody, unless they were required in connection with any other offense. The Registry was also directed to send intimation to the concerned jail authorities regarding the acquittal of Devender.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that convictions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of witness testimonies that rely on rumors and lack a proper identification parade. The case reinforces the importance of reliable and credible evidence in criminal trials, particularly regarding the identification of the accused. The Supreme Court also reiterated its inherent power to rectify manifest injustice and extend benefits to co-accused persons, even when their appeals have been previously dismissed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Surya Vir vs. State of Haryana underscores the critical importance of reliable identification evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court’s decision to acquit the accused, despite prior convictions by lower courts, highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that justice is served and that convictions are based on solid, credible evidence, not on hearsay or speculation. The Court’s decision to extend the same benefit to the co-accused further emphasizes the principle of fairness and equal treatment under the law.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Murder
Child Category: Identification of Accused
Child Category: Evidence
Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 25, Arms Act, 1959

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Surya Vir vs. State of Haryana case?
A: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the unreliable identification evidence.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?
A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the witnesses’ identification was based on rumors, not direct observation, and no test identification parade was conducted.

Q: What is a test identification parade?
A: A test identification parade is a procedure where witnesses are asked to identify the accused from a group of individuals, to verify their claims.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment emphasizes that convictions must be based on reliable evidence, not on hearsay, and that test identification parades are crucial for verifying witness claims.

Q: What happened to the co-accused in this case?
A: The Supreme Court extended the same benefit of acquittal to the co-accused, Devender, whose Special Leave Petition had been previously dismissed.