Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Doubtful Testimony: Saheb vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) INSC 700 (18 September 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 700
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Aravind Kumar
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitness account is inconsistent and unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had upheld the conviction of two individuals based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, found significant inconsistencies and lacunae in the prosecution’s case, ultimately acquitting the accused. This judgment underscores the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The bench comprised Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare, who was attacked at his residence in Village Singi on 08 April 2006, between 7:30 PM and 8:00 PM. The prosecution’s case was that 22 individuals assaulted Madhavrao and his family members with axes and sticks. The primary motive was alleged to be political rivalry, stemming from the deceased’s past position as Sarpanch and subsequent animosity with his nephews, Khemaji and Sambhaji. The deceased died on the spot due to head injuries and intracranial hemorrhage with multiple fractures, and several others were injured during the attack. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered based on the complaint of Janakibai Gabare, the deceased’s wife.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, convicted nine of the twenty-two accused under Sections 148, 302, and 324, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). These convictions were appealed to the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court upheld the conviction of three accused (Khemaji, Saheb, and Sitaram) under Sections 302 and 148 of the IPC, while acquitting the other six due to lack of specific charges related to the injuries inflicted on the deceased and other injured persons. The High Court also acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Nos. 3 (Saheb) and 5 (Sitaram) then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section deals with rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 324, IPC: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
• Section 149, IPC: “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.” This section deals with the concept of common intention in unlawful assemblies.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of Janakibai (PW-1), the deceased’s wife, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The prosecution argued that her testimony, despite some inconsistencies, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The prosecution also presented the post-mortem report of the deceased, which confirmed the cause of death. The prosecution also relied on the testimony of other witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.

The defense argued that the testimony of Janakibai (PW-1) was unreliable due to significant inconsistencies between her initial complaint and her deposition in court. They highlighted the fact that the incident occurred during a power cut, with only moonlight as illumination, making accurate identification difficult. The defense also pointed out that key eyewitnesses, such as the daughter-in-law, Annapurnabai, were not examined by the prosecution, and that other witnesses were found to be unreliable by the High Court. The defense also argued that the prosecution failed to establish the specific roles of each accused in the assault, and that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants based solely on the testimony of Janakibai (PW-1) was sustainable given the inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements.
2. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

• Narain vs. State of M.P. [ (2004) 2 SCC 455 ]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to highlight the principle that while the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is a rule of caution, an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood. If such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction.

Judgment

Authorities:

• Narain vs. State of M.P. [(2004) 2 SCC 455]* was used by the court to emphasize the principle that while the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is a rule of caution, an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood. If such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Inconsistencies in Testimony: The court noted significant discrepancies between Janakibai’s initial complaint and her deposition in court, raising serious doubts about her credibility.
• Lack of Corroboration: The absence of reliable corroborating evidence and the failure to examine key eyewitnesses weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Identification Issues: The incident occurred during a power cut with limited moonlight, making accurate identification difficult.
• Benefit of Doubt: Given the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and the unreliable nature of the primary eyewitness account, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the evidence presented. The court highlighted the inconsistencies in Janakibai’s testimony, noting that she had “embroidered her story”. The court also emphasized that “the guilt of those responsible for his murder has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt” and that “all that the defence needs to establish is the existence of reasonable doubt for the accused to be given the benefit thereof.” The court also noted that “given the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and the shaky evidence adduced in support thereof by PW-1, we necessarily have to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants.” The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that Janakibai’s testimony was reliable despite minor inconsistencies, stating that her embellishments and contradictions raised serious doubts about her credibility. The court also pointed out that the prosecution failed to establish the specific roles of each accused in the assault, further weakening their case.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment underscores the importance of credible and consistent eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
• Inconsistencies and embellishments in a witness’s statement can significantly undermine their credibility.
• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused if the evidence is weak or unreliable.
• The failure to examine key eyewitnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The judgment highlights the principle that the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is only a rule of caution and that an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the release of the appellants, discharged their bail bonds and sureties, and ordered the refund of any fine amount paid by them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an unreliable eyewitness account, especially when there are significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused if the evidence is weak or unreliable. The judgment does not establish a new position of law but reinforces the existing legal principles related to evidence and burden of proof in criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Saheb and Sitaram in the murder case highlights the critical importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials. The court found that the prosecution’s case rested on the shaky testimony of a single eyewitness, which was riddled with inconsistencies and embellishments. This case serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based on doubtful evidence and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Evidence
Child Category: Murder
Child Category: Benefit of Doubt
Child Category: Eyewitness Testimony
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the conviction of the accused for murder could be upheld based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, whose account was inconsistent and unreliable.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?
A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the primary eyewitness testimony was inconsistent, and there was a lack of reliable corroborating evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal trials. It emphasizes that convictions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of doubtful evidence and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution’s case is weak.

Q: What does ‘benefit of doubt’ mean in legal terms?
A: ‘Benefit of doubt’ means that if there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, they should be acquitted. The prosecution must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they fail to do so, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Q: How does this judgment affect future cases?
A: This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts that convictions must be based on solid evidence. It reinforces the principle that inconsistent and unreliable eyewitness accounts cannot form the sole basis of a conviction, particularly in serious offenses like murder.