Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Doubtful Eyewitness Testimony: Chhote Lal vs. Rohtash & Ors. (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1072

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a conviction be upheld when the primary evidence comes from a single eyewitness who is also the father of the victim, especially when there are doubts about his presence at the scene of the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Chhote Lal vs. Rohtash & Ors., ultimately acquitting the accused due to concerns about the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and the incompleteness of the circumstantial evidence. This case highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, with Justice Pankaj Mithal authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Kishan Sarup, which occurred due to a long-standing dispute between two interrelated groups. The conflict initially began in 1986 over access to a public road. Although a compromise was reached, tensions persisted, eventually leading to the murder of Ram Kishan. In retaliation, the rival group allegedly killed Kishan Sarup.

On November 4, 2000, at approximately 7 PM, Kishan Sarup and the appellant/complainant, Chhote Lal, were traveling on a motorcycle when they were allegedly attacked. According to the First Information Report (FIR), a car chased their motorcycle, forcing them off the road. The occupants of the car then attacked Kishan Sarup with knives and iron rods before taking him away in their vehicle. Chhote Lal, the complainant, reported the incident to the police, and the FIR was registered on November 5, 2000.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted six of the ten accused persons for offenses under Sections 148, 201/149, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The maximum sentence was life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and in default, an additional six months of imprisonment under Section 302/149 of the IPC. However, the High Court overturned this conviction in its judgment and order dated November 20, 2008, acquitting all six accused.

Chhote Lal, the complainant, then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 148, IPC: Deals with rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 201/149, IPC: Addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender, read with the common intention of the members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302/149, IPC: Relates to murder, read with the common intention of the members of an unlawful assembly.

Arguments

Appellant’s Argument (Chhote Lal):

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellate court should be hesitant to overturn a conviction made by the trial court, especially when there is eyewitness testimony.
• The counsel emphasized the presence of the complainant as an eyewitness to the initial assault on Kishan Sarup.

Respondents’ Argument (Accused):

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the conviction due to doubts about the sole eyewitness’s testimony and the lack of complete circumstantial evidence.
• The respondents highlighted the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and the lack of explanation for his inaction during the assault.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s conviction based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• The ocular testimony of PW-9, the complainant, who was the sole eyewitness.
• The FIR lodged by the complainant.
• Postmortem report of the deceased.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court did not rely on any specific authorities in the form of case laws, but it assessed the evidence presented before it:

• The ocular testimony of PW-9 was considered unreliable due to inconsistencies and the fact that he was an interested witness being the father of the deceased.
• The FIR was found to be inconsistent with the postmortem report, which indicated death by firing, a detail not mentioned in the FIR.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The doubtful nature of the sole eyewitness testimony.
• Inconsistencies between the FIR and the postmortem report.
• The lack of a plausible explanation for the complainant’s inaction during the assault.
• The incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court noted that both the trial court’s and the High Court’s views were possible interpretations of the evidence. However, the Court emphasized that a conviction must be based on evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to meet that standard.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“The prosecution in this case has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness.”

“In respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not complete whereas the presence of eyewitness is also doubtful.”

“Thus, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons appears to be the most plausible view.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a sole eyewitness, especially if they are an interested party, must be scrutinized carefully.
• Inconsistencies between different pieces of evidence can cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
• The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events to prove guilt based on circumstantial evidence.
• The benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused if the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on doubtful eyewitness testimony and incomplete circumstantial evidence. The court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the doubtful nature of the sole eyewitness testimony and the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.