Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to FIR Interpolation and Lack of Evidence: Mohd. Muslim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 15 June 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 564

Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can inconsistencies in the timing of a First Information Report (FIR) and the conduct of witnesses undermine a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, ultimately acquitting an accused due to doubts about the authenticity of the FIR and the reliability of witness testimonies. The bench, consisting of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, delivered the judgment, with Justice Pankaj Mithal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On August 4, 1995, at approximately 9:00 AM, Altaf Hussain was allegedly attacked and killed near Bajari Plant on G.T. Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mangalore. The deceased, Altaf Hussain, was reportedly involved in a land dispute with the accused, Mohd. Muslim and Shamshad. The incident occurred while Altaf Hussain was on his way to Roorkee to attend proceedings related to the land dispute. He was traveling on his bicycle, followed by his son, Salim Ahmad (PW-1), and nephew, Irshad (PW-2), also on bicycles. The accused, allegedly armed with a “tabal” and an “axe,” assaulted Altaf Hussain. Upon hearing an alarm, Tahir and Md. Afzal (PW-3) attempted to intervene, but the assailants escaped, leaving behind a blanket and a bicycle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, committed the case to the Sessions Court on October 26, 1995. The Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants on April 25, 1998. The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the conviction on appeal on September 10, 2010. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against this High Court judgment. It is noted that the appeal against accused appellant No. 2 was abated on August 16, 2021. Accused appellant No. 1, now 79 years old, had served six years of incarceration and was on bail since 2013.

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.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Accused):

• The First Information Report (FIR) was interpolated and ante-timed from 1:50 PM to 9:00 AM on August 4, 1995.
• The FIR was lodged with a delay, and the chick FIR report was sent to the Court after a delay of four days.
• The conduct of the deceased’s son and nephew was unnatural as they did not attempt to save the deceased or provide medical aid.
• There was a lack of independent eyewitnesses to the incident.
• The prosecution failed to establish that the blanket and cycle recovered from the site belonged to the accused.
• The testimony of Md. Afzal (PW-3) was contradictory and did not support the prosecution’s case.

Arguments of the Respondent (State):

• The FIR was lodged promptly, and the accused were correctly identified by the witnesses.
• The weapons of the crime were recovered at the instance of the accused.
• The medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
• The accused had a motive to commit the crime due to a land dispute.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the FIR was ante-timed and interpolated, thereby affecting its evidentiary value.
2. Whether the conduct of the witnesses was natural and credible.
3. Whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Meharaj Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [1994] 5 SCC 188 – The Supreme Court of India cited this case to support its view that ante-timing of the FIR reduces its evidentiary value, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

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?

• Meharaj Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [1994] 5 SCC 188: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that the ante-timing of the FIR reduced its evidentiary value, thus entitling the accused to benefit of doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Interpolation and Ante-timing of the FIR: The Court found clear evidence that the FIR was altered to show an earlier time of lodging, which cast serious doubt on its authenticity.
• Unnatural Conduct of Witnesses: The behavior of the deceased’s son and nephew, who did not attempt to intervene or assist their father, raised questions about their presence and credibility.
• Lack of Independent Witnesses: The absence of credible independent eyewitnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Failure to Produce Key Evidence: The prosecution’s failure to produce the ‘loi’ (blanket) and cycle in court, or to establish their ownership by the accused, was a significant lapse.
• Contradictory Testimony: The conflicting statements of Md. Afzal (PW-3) undermined the prosecution’s case.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual discrepancies and the lack of credible evidence (70%), with legal considerations of the FIR’s evidentiary value and the burden of proof playing a supporting role (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated:

• “A bare pursual of the aforesaid FIR clearly shows that there is some interpolation in the time of its lodging mentioned therein. It is evident from naked eye that ‘1’ has been converted into ‘9’ and ‘5’ has been rounded off to make ‘0’ whereas ‘PM’ has been converted into ‘AM’. In other words, 1:50 PM has been changed to 9:00 AM.”
• “The reason for ante-timing the FIR is not difficult to comprehend. The prosecution case is that deceased Altaf Hussain was going to the consolidation Court for attending the land dispute. Obviously, if he was going to the Court, it would have been early in the morning before the start of the Court rather than in the afternoon that too in the post-lunch session.”
• “In view of all that has been said above, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove to the hilt that the accused appellants were the persons involved in the assault and death of the deceased Altaf Hussain.”

The Court emphasized that the infirmities in the FIR, coupled with the unnatural conduct of witnesses and the lack of credible evidence, led to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of FIR Integrity: The judgment highlights the critical importance of maintaining the integrity of the FIR. Any tampering or interpolation can significantly undermine its evidentiary value.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The conduct and behavior of witnesses are crucial in establishing the truth. Unnatural or inconsistent behavior can cast doubt on their credibility.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to do so, due to lack of credible evidence or inconsistencies in the case, can lead to acquittal.
• Preservation of Evidence: The judgment underscores the importance of preserving and producing all relevant evidence in court. Failure to do so can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders of the lower courts and acquitted the accused appellant No. 1, Mohd. Muslim, by giving the benefit of doubt.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that any interpolation or ante-timing of the FIR significantly reduces its evidentiary value, and the unnatural conduct of witnesses, along with the lack of credible evidence, can lead to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has reaffirmed the importance of the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Muslim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the FIR and the credibility of witnesses in criminal cases. The Court’s meticulous examination of the evidence and its finding of interpolation in the FIR, along with the unnatural conduct of key witnesses, led to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of ensuring a fair trial.