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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 June 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 579

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

Can a conviction for murder stand when the initial police report is altered and key witnesses’ testimonies are inconsistent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a father and son accused of murder. The court’s decision highlights the importance of the integrity of evidence and the need for reliable eyewitness accounts in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Altaf Hussain on August 4, 1995. The prosecution alleged that Altaf Hussain was attacked by the accused, Mohd. Muslim and Shamshad, due to a land dispute. Altaf Hussain was on his way to Roorkee for a hearing related to this dispute. His son, Salim Ahmad (PW-1), and nephew, Irshad (PW-2), were following him on their bicycles. Near Bajari Plant on G.T. Road, the accused allegedly assaulted Altaf Hussain with a “tabal” and an “axe.” Upon hearing the alarm, Tahir and Md. Afzal (PW-3) tried to intervene, but the accused escaped, leaving behind a blanket and a cycle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused appellants on April 25, 1998, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction on appeal. The present appeal before the Supreme Court is against the High Court’s decision. It is noted that the appeal against accused appellant No. 2 was abated on August 16, 2021. Accused appellant No. 1 was 79 years old at the time of the Supreme Court judgment and had been on bail since 2013, after serving six years of incarceration.

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. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The prosecution’s case rested on proving that the accused committed the murder of Altaf Hussain, which would attract the punishment under this section.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The primary argument was that the First Information Report (FIR) was interpolated and ante-timed. The original time of lodging the FIR was 1:50 PM, which was altered to 9:00 AM.
• The conduct of the deceased’s son (PW-1) and nephew (PW-2) was unnatural. They did not try to save the deceased, nor did they provide medical aid, instead rushing to file a complaint.
• There was no independent eyewitness to the incident. Tahir, an alleged independent witness, was not examined.
• The testimony of Md. Afzal (PW-3) was contradictory and did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The ‘loi’ (blanket) and cycle, allegedly belonging to the accused, were not produced in court or identified by the accused.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the accused were guilty of murder based on the eyewitness testimony of the deceased’s son and nephew.
• The prosecution contended that the recovery of the weapons and the ‘loi’ and cycle from the spot linked the accused to the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the FIR was ante-timed and interpolated?
2. Whether the conduct of the son and nephew of the deceased was unnatural?
3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Meharaj Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 188, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that ante-timing of the FIR reduces its evidentiary value, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

The Court also considered:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The provision for punishment of murder.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Examination of accused.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Meharaj Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1994) 5 SCC 188] to emphasize that the ante-timing of the FIR significantly reduces its evidentiary value, thus raising doubts about the prosecution’s case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The clear interpolation of the FIR, which cast doubt on its authenticity.
• The unnatural conduct of the deceased’s son and nephew, who did not attempt to save him or provide aid.
• The lack of credible independent eyewitnesses to the incident.
• The failure of the prosecution to produce crucial evidence, such as the ‘loi’ and cycle, and establish their connection to the accused.
• The contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was significantly swayed by the factual inconsistencies and the lack of credible evidence, with legal principles playing a supporting role.

Logical Reasoning:

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted, “The totality of the facts and circumstances especially the unnatural behaviour and conduct of the son and nephew of the deceased Altaf Hussain, ante-timing of the FIR…compels us to doubt the presence of the son and nephew of the deceased Altaf Hussain at the site.” The court also stated, “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 further added, “Even if we ignore certain other minor discrepancies in the oral evidence…it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the FIR as a crucial piece of evidence.
• It underscores the need for reliable and consistent eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
• The decision emphasizes that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any infirmities in the evidence can lead to acquittal.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an FIR with clear interpolations and inconsistencies, coupled with unreliable eyewitness testimony and a lack of credible evidence, cannot sustain a conviction for murder. This case reinforces the established legal principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt should benefit the accused. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case emphasizes the importance of the integrity of evidence and the need for reliable witness accounts in criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused in this murder case highlights the critical importance of the integrity of evidence and the reliability of witness testimony in criminal trials. The court found that the FIR had been tampered with, the conduct of the key witnesses was unnatural, and there was a lack of credible independent evidence. These factors led the court to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, thus warranting an acquittal.