Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Doubtful Evidence: Harilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 801

Judges: J. B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and doubts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the prosecution’s evidence was found to be unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment highlights the importance of a credible and consistent prosecution case in criminal trials. The bench comprised of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, with the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

On August 25, 1989, at approximately 8:00 PM, Ellahabadiya alias Vijay was allegedly murdered. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on August 26, 1989, at P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (M.P.) by Smt. Jugmatibai (PW-9), naming Anshram, Parasram alias Rangnath, and Harilal as the accused. The police conducted an inquest, collected blood-stained and plain earth, and seized a lathi from the crime scene. Subsequently, lathis and clothes were discovered at the instance of Anshram, Parasram, and Harilal from their respective houses. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted on August 27, 1989, by Dr. S.K. Dutta (PW-8), who noted several ante-mortem external and internal injuries, and determined the cause of death to be shock due to injuries in the brain and lungs.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Anshram, Parasram, and Harilal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the testimony of eye-witnesses and the discovery of weapons. Anshram’s appeal was abated due to his death. The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeals of Harilal and Parasram, affirming the trial court’s decision. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges the High Court’s judgment.

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. The section states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The case also touches upon the exceptions to murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which, if applicable, could reduce the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also considered the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, specifically Section 161, relating to the recording of statements by the police during the investigation.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:

• The FIR was lodged the next day at 10 AM, suggesting deliberation and a fabricated story, as opposed to an immediate report of the incident.
• PW-2’s testimony is unreliable because:
  • He is a resident of Khapri, not Kohroda where the incident occurred, and his claim of watching TV there is questionable.
  • He informed PW-9, who denies being informed by any eyewitness.
  • He only named Harilal, not the other accused.
  • He did not state the deceased was fatally injured.
• PW-6’s testimony is inconsistent because:
  • He stated the accused used sticks (danda) in his investigation statement but said they used lathi in court.
  • His reasons for coming out of his house to witness the incident were inconsistent.
  • He said the incident occurred in front of Anshram’s house, but the body was found near a temple.
  • He did not report the incident to anyone.
• The incident appears to be a street fight, possibly falling under exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and a reduction in sentence.

Submissions on behalf of the State:

• The FIR was not delayed because villagers guarded the body overnight, and it was lodged the next morning.
• PW-2 is a natural witness whose testimony corroborates PW-6’s account of the assault.
• PW-6’s testimony is consistent with medical evidence and inculpates all three accused.
• No improper motive was attributed to the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused.
• The ocular account is corroborated by the discovery of lathi and clothes with blood stains.
• The injuries on the deceased indicate a merciless beating, ruling out application of exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues. However, the primary issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court did not cite any specific cases or books. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Punishment for murder).
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Definition of Murder and exceptions).
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Examination of witnesses by police).

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the primary charge, but found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt under this section. The Court acknowledged the possibility of the incident being a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but did not make a specific finding on it due to lack of evidence. The Court used Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assess the credibility of the witnesses, finding inconsistencies in their statements.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s evidence. The delayed FIR, the unreliable testimonies of key witnesses, the unexplained movement of the body, and the lack of clarity regarding the weapon used all contributed to the Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the genesis of the crime and the manner in which the murder took place, raising a strong probability of mob violence rather than a planned murder by the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was more influenced by the factual inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case (60%) than by purely legal considerations (40%). The court focused on the lack of credible evidence and the doubts raised by the factual discrepancies.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of a street fight or mob violence, but ultimately rejected the prosecution’s version of events due to the lack of credible evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, the prosecution failed to do so.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The testimonies of PW-2 and PW-6 were inconsistent and unreliable.
• The FIR was delayed without proper explanation.
• The movement of the body from the alleged assault site to the temple was unexplained.
• The origin of the blood on the seized lathis and clothes was not confirmed.
• The presence of a lathi near the dead body was unexplained.

“In light of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to convincingly prove the genesis of the crime as also the manner in which the murder took place and by whom, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution gives rise to a strong probability of the killing being a consequence of mob action on the deceased for his alleged involvement with a lady of the village.”

“Thus, taking into account that it was a case of night occurrence, the body of the deceased was found at an open place near a temple; a named FIR was lodged not by any villager of the place where the deceased was assaulted, but by PW-9 i.e., the village Chowkidar of the neighbouring village, who admits that no eye witness had informed her; and the body was found at a distance of 300 feet from the place where the deceased was allegedly assaulted, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

“For all the reasons above, we do not consider seizure of lathi and clothes from the accused as a clinching circumstance warranting conviction.”

There was no minority opinion.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, legal interpretations, and application of the law to the facts of the case. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was weak and riddled with inconsistencies, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This decision underscores the importance of a robust prosecution case and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

This judgment has implications for future cases, emphasizing the need for credible and consistent witness testimonies, timely FIRs, and clear evidence linking the accused to the crime. It also highlights the importance of considering alternative explanations and giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused when the evidence is not conclusive.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Delayed FIRs without proper explanation can raise doubts about the prosecution’s story.
• The unexplained movement of a victim’s body can cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.
• The origin of seized evidence must be confirmed to be admissible.
• The benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused when the evidence is not conclusive.

This judgment reinforces the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and emphasizes the need for a thorough and credible investigation by the prosecution. It may lead to more rigorous scrutiny of evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases where witness testimonies are inconsistent or there are unexplained gaps in the prosecution’s story.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the acquittal of the appellants, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. The Court ordered that the appellants’ bail bonds be discharged and that they need not surrender. If they were not on bail, they were to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or doubts in the prosecution’s case must be resolved in favor of the accused. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the burden of proof and the need for credible evidence. There is no change in the previous position of law. The court reiterated the established legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in the case of Harilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, citing the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and reliable prosecution and reinforces the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the genesis of the crime and the manner in which the murder took place, raising a strong probability of mob violence rather than a planned murder by the accused.