Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Untrustworthy Witness Testimony (24 October 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2019
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, overturned the conviction of several individuals accused of murder, questioning the credibility of the eyewitness accounts. The core issue before the court was whether the testimonies of the prosecution’s key witnesses were reliable enough to sustain a conviction. The bench, comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Gajraj Singh, who was allegedly beaten to death by the accused. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram Singh (PW-11), who claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased with lathis. The incident allegedly occurred on 25 May 1994, around 2 PM, near a place called Brar Khora. According to the witnesses, they were threatened when they intervened and then fled the scene.

The prosecution also presented the testimonies of Somati (PW-6) and Raghubir (PW-7), who stated that they had last seen Gajraj Singh with the accused Imrat Singh. The prosecution argued that this established a “last seen” theory, linking Imrat Singh to the crime. The trial court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had previously convicted the accused based on these testimonies. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Datia, initially convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld this judgment. The accused then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly. Additionally, Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, was also considered.

• Section 148, Indian Penal Code: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code: Addresses the concept of vicarious liability for offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Prescribes the punishment for murder.

Arguments

The appellants, represented by Ms. June Chaudhary and amicus curiae Mr. Shikhil Suri, argued that the testimonies of Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram Singh (PW-11) were unreliable and contradictory. They pointed out inconsistencies in their statements regarding the events after the alleged assault.

The appellants also contended that the testimonies of Somati (PW-6) and Raghubir (PW-7) were contradictory and, at best, implicated only Imrat Singh, not all the accused. The defense highlighted that the prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses, such as those who were allegedly informed by Lakhan Singh (PW-10) immediately after the incident, and the police officials who were involved in the initial investigation.

The respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent on the core issue of the assault and that the minor contradictions were not material enough to discredit their accounts. They also relied on the “last seen” theory to implicate the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the testimonies of Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram Singh (PW-11) were trustworthy and reliable enough to sustain a conviction.
2. Whether the testimonies of Somati (PW-6) and Raghubir (PW-7) could be relied upon to establish the “last seen” theory and implicate the accused.
3. Whether the prosecution’s failure to examine crucial witnesses and the inconsistencies in the investigation cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court did consider the following legal provisions:

• Section 148, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code: This section addresses the concept of vicarious liability for offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: This section prescribes the punishment for murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses were not reliable. The Court noted significant contradictions in the statements of Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram Singh (PW-11), particularly regarding the events after the alleged assault and their interactions with the police. The Court also found the testimonies of Somati (PW-6) and Raghubir (PW-7) to be inconsistent and contradictory.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to examine several crucial witnesses, including those who were allegedly informed about the incident immediately after it occurred and the police officials involved in the initial investigation. The Court also highlighted that the site plan was prepared in a manner that raised questions about the fairness of the investigation.

The Court stated, “We are of the view that the High Court and the Trial Court did not take into consideration these contradictions of the witnesses and relied upon the witnesses especially Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram Singh (PW-11) without referring to the attending circumstances to which we have referred to in detail hereinabove.”

The Court further noted, “It has come on record that Gajraj Singh was not a very popular man. He had a lot of enemies. It has also come in evidence that almost all the witnesses have some criminal antecedents and some cases are pending against them.”

The Court concluded, “In the present case, keeping in view the various contradictions pointed out above and the fact that in view of the contradictions it is difficult to rely upon the statements of Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram Singh (PW-11) as well as Somati (PW-6) and Raghubir (PW-7), we are of the view that a doubt has been cast and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Court found that the inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies, coupled with the failure to examine crucial witnesses, created a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The Court also considered the fact that the deceased was unpopular and had many enemies, which could have led to false implication of the accused. The court was also influenced by the fact that the witnesses had criminal antecedents. The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The judgment underscores the importance of consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
• ✓ It highlights that contradictions in witness statements, especially regarding material facts, can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the need for thorough and fair investigations, including the examination of all crucial witnesses.
• ✓ The decision reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the evidence is not conclusive.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of both the lower courts, and acquitted the accused. The court also directed that the bail bonds of the accused be discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses are unreliable due to significant contradictions and inconsistencies, and when the prosecution fails to examine crucial witnesses, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the burden of proof and the standard of evidence required for conviction. The Supreme Court did not change any previous position of law but applied existing law to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in the murder case, citing the unreliability of the prosecution’s key witnesses and the inconsistencies in the investigation. The judgment highlights the importance of credible evidence and thorough investigations in criminal trials.