Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Contradictory Eyewitness Testimony: Parvat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) INSC 185 (2 March 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 185
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the sole eyewitness account is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. This case highlights the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials, particularly when relying on a single eyewitness. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Bal Kishan, son of Mullo Bai, on December 1, 2005, at approximately 4-5 a.m. in Village Hinotiya Gird. Mullo Bai (PW8), the mother of the deceased, was the sole eyewitness. She stated that she was sleeping in the cattle shed when she was awakened by the barking of dogs. She saw the accused, including Bal Kishan (son of Diman Singh), with an axe, and the other accused (appellants) with sticks. According to Mullo Bai, Bal Kishan (son of Diman Singh) attacked her son, Bal Kishan (son of Bhagwan Singh), with the axe, and the other accused were present. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on Mullo Bai’s testimony.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all the accused based solely on the testimony of Mullo Bai (PW8). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior upheld the conviction of accused nos. 2 to 5 (the appellants) in Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2006. The Supreme Court noted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the conviction of the original accused no. 1 (Bal Kishan, son of Diman Singh) was dismissed. The present appeal was filed by the original accused nos. 2 to 5 against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The appellants were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder, read with Section 149 of the IPC, which addresses offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly.

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

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code states, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in upholding the conviction based solely on the testimony of Mullo Bai (PW8), which was full of contradictions and improvements.
• It was a dark night, making it difficult for Mullo Bai to identify the accused.
• There were material contradictions in Mullo Bai’s statements regarding the source of light (torch vs. chimney light) and the actions of the accused.
• Mullo Bai’s statement that Santosh and Rakesh held the deceased was an improvement made for the first time in court.
• There was no recovery of any torch from the place of incident.
• The High Court wrongly relied on Mullo Bai’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to conclude that the appellants were carrying lathis.
• There was no evidence of a common object or conspiracy to kill the deceased.
• Given the existing dispute between the parties, false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out.
• The case of accused nos. 2 to 5 is distinguishable from that of accused no. 1, as there were fewer contradictions and improvements in the case of accused no. 1.

State’s Arguments:

• There are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and High Court, which should not be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• A conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, particularly if the witness is reliable.
• Mullo Bai’s presence at the scene was natural, and she is a trustworthy witness.
• The presence of the appellants at the scene at 4-5 a.m. is sufficient to convict them under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
• Mullo Bai recognized the appellants by their voices.
• The conviction of the original accused no. 1 was also based on Mullo Bai’s testimony and was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants (original accused nos. 2 to 5) can be convicted relying upon the deposition of the sole witness – PW8, and whether PW8 is a reliable and trustworthy witness to convict the appellants?

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 legal principles:

✓ The Court reiterated that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness, but only if the witness is reliable and trustworthy, and there are no material contradictions, omissions, or improvements in their testimony.

✓ The Court also reiterated the settled legal position that statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are inadmissible in evidence, and can only be used to prove contradictions or omissions.

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 the principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness, but only if the witness is reliable and trustworthy.
• The Court reiterated the settled legal position that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and can only be used to prove contradictions or omissions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the sole eyewitness’s testimony. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Material Contradictions: The Court noted significant inconsistencies in Mullo Bai’s (PW8) statements, particularly regarding the source of light (torch vs. chimney), the actions of the accused, and the presence of lathis.
• Omissions and Improvements: The Court highlighted that Mullo Bai made material improvements in her deposition before the Court, including the claim that Santosh and Rakesh held the deceased, which was not mentioned in her earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
• Inadmissibility of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements: The Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and can only be used to prove contradictions or omissions, not to establish facts.
• Benefit of Doubt: Given the material contradictions, omissions, and improvements in PW8’s testimony, the Court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
• Distinguishable Case: The Court found that the case of the appellants was distinguishable from that of the original accused no. 1, as PW8’s statements were consistent with regard to the original accused no. 1, and the axe was recovered at his instance.

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Mullo Bai (PW8), was unreliable due to significant inconsistencies and improvements. The Court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, the witness must be trustworthy and credible. In this case, the contradictions in Mullo Bai’s statements, coupled with the lack of corroborating evidence, led the Court to acquit the appellants. The Court also highlighted that statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are inadmissible as evidence and can only be used to prove contradictions or omissions.

The Court stated, “Therefore, the deposition of PW8 is full of material contradictions and improvements so far as original accused Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned.”

The Court further stated, “As per the settled proposition of law, the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions.”

The Court also noted, “For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that in view of the material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of PW8 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as deposition before the Court qua the appellants – accused nos. 2 to 5 and that there was a prior enmity and no other independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein – original accused nos. 2 to 5 are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a sole eyewitness must be reliable and trustworthy for a conviction to be upheld.
• Material contradictions, omissions, and improvements in the testimony of a witness can render it unreliable.
• Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible as evidence and can only be used to prove contradictions or omissions.
• The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when there are significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants (original accused nos. 2 to 5) be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained if it is based solely on the testimony of an eyewitness that is riddled with material contradictions, omissions, and improvements. This case emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing principles regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the use of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the accused (original accused nos. 2 to 5) of the charges under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision was based on the finding that the sole eyewitness’s testimony was unreliable due to material contradictions, omissions, and improvements. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and the benefit of doubt in criminal trials.