Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Unreliable Witness Testimony (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 8 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1000

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Can a conviction be upheld when key witnesses are deemed partially unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning a murder case. The court examined the consistency and reliability of witness testimonies, particularly when those testimonies are partially disbelieved by the lower courts. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar, ultimately acquitted the accused, Balaram, emphasizing the principle that a conviction cannot stand on the testimony of witnesses deemed wholly unreliable.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred around 8-9 a.m. when Ramkali (PW.5), Mulchand (PW.6), along with their relative Pannalal (PW.8), son Ashok, granddaughter Rani, and two other villagers were traveling in a bullock cart from Ujhawal to Mau. Pannalal was driving the cart. Near village Rasnol, their cart was stopped by two individuals, and shortly after, 3-4 more people arrived.

According to the prosecution, Rameshwar (since deceased), Balaram (the appellant), Uma Charan, and Munna arrived ten minutes after the cart was stopped. Rameshwar allegedly fired the first shot, hitting Ashok in the chest. Uma Charan then fired a shot that hit Ashok in the arm, and a third shot was fired, hitting Ramkali in her right thigh. Ashok became unconscious and was taken to Mau, where he later died. Pannalal reported the incident to the police. Initially, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempt to murder, which was later converted to Section 302 of the IPC for murder after Ashok’s death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and the case was committed to the Special Judge & Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. Six accused were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 307, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court acquitted Ram Bharosey, Munna, Uma Charan, and Amar Singh. However, Rameshwar was found guilty under Sections 148, 302, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Balaram was found guilty under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, and Section 307 of the IPC.

Balaram and Rameshwar appealed to the High Court, which dismissed their appeals. Subsequently, they appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Rameshwar died, and his appeal was abated, leaving only Balaram’s appeal to be considered.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Attempt to murder.
• Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for wrongful restraint.

These sections define the offences and punishments related to rioting, murder, attempt to murder, and wrongful restraint. The concept of unlawful assembly and the liability of its members under Section 149 was also relevant in this case.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Balaram):

• The primary argument was that the Trial Court acquitted four other accused based on the same evidence that was used to convict Balaram.
• The testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand, who specifically attributed a gunshot to Uma Charan, was disbelieved by the Trial Court with respect to Uma Charan. The appellant argued that the same evidence should not be used to convict Balaram.
• The appellant contended that other witnesses’ testimonies indicated that Balaram was not present at the scene of the crime and was falsely implicated.
• The appellant argued that the alleged motive of previous enmity was weak, as the incident regarding the murder of Balaram’s brother had occurred 4-5 years prior. He also stated that previous enmity is a double-edged sword, and could lead to false implication.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The State argued that the Trial Court had correctly separated the credible evidence from the unreliable parts.
• The State submitted that the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand was reliable because their ocular testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence.
• The State contended that PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand were rustic villagers, and minor inconsistencies in their evidence should not be a reason to discard their testimony.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant-Balaram, when the Trial Court had disbelieved the same evidence with respect to another accused, Uma Charan.

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 submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614] to classify witnesses into three categories: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and partially reliable. The Court found that PW.5 and PW.6 fell into the category of wholly unreliable witnesses, and therefore, their testimony could not be relied upon for conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistency in the lower court’s approach to the witness testimonies. The Court emphasized that when the testimony of key witnesses is disbelieved in part, particularly concerning one accused, it cannot be selectively relied upon to convict another accused based on the same evidence. The Court was also wary of the double-edged nature of previous enmity as a motive, acknowledging the possibility of false implication. The Court also found that the testimonies of PW.5 and PW.6 were inconsistent and unreliable.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that if a witness is found to be unreliable in one aspect of their testimony, the entire testimony should be treated with caution. The Court noted that the Trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of PW.5 and PW.6 with respect to Uma Charan, and the same standard should have been applied to Balaram. The Court also highlighted that previous enmity can be a double-edged sword, and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “We find it difficult to accept the distinction drawn by the learned Trial Judge while believing the evidence of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand insofar as appellant-Balaram and Rameshwar (since deceased) are concerned.”
• “We are of the considered view that the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand would come in the category of wholly unreliable witnesses. As such, conviction on the basis of their testimony, in our view, would not be sustainable.”
• “As already discussed herein above, previous enmity is a double edged weapon; on the one hand it provides the motive, whereas on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.”

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions, and the decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction cannot be sustained based on the testimony of witnesses deemed wholly unreliable.
• If a court disbelieves a witness’s testimony in part, the same standard of disbelief should be applied to the entire testimony, especially when it concerns different accused in the same case.
• Previous enmity, while a potential motive, can also be a basis for false implication and should be carefully scrutinized.
• The principle of separating the ‘chaff from the grain’ should be applied consistently across all accused in a case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Balaram, be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a witness deemed wholly unreliable cannot be the basis for a conviction. This decision reinforces the principle that the same standard of scrutiny must be applied to witness testimonies when evaluating the cases of multiple accused in the same incident. It also highlights the need for caution when considering previous enmity as a motive, as it can lead to false implications. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles of evidence evaluation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Balaram, setting aside his conviction and ordering his release. The Court emphasized that the testimony of PW.5 and PW.6 was wholly unreliable and could not be the basis for a conviction. This judgment underscores the importance of consistent evaluation of evidence and the need to avoid selective reliance on witness testimonies.