Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to flawed witness testimonies: Alaudin vs. State of Assam (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 03, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 376
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a conviction for murder stand when the key eyewitness testimonies are unreliable and the legal basis for the conviction is flawed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the conviction of the accused. This case underscores the importance of rigorous scrutiny of evidence and the correct application of legal principles in criminal trials.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the convictions of four individuals for the murder of one Sahabuddin Choudhury. The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of key witnesses, and found them to be unreliable due to significant contradictions and omissions. The court also addressed the incorrect application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with unlawful assembly, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Sahabuddin Choudhury on February 3, 2013. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the appellants, were part of an unlawful assembly that committed the murder. The primary allegation was that Md. Abdul Kadir (accused no. 1) picked up the victim from his residence at 4 pm on the day of the incident and took him to Bhojkhowa Chapori Bazar. Subsequently, the victim was killed behind L.P. School using a sharp weapon. Initially, eight individuals were tried, with five being convicted by the Trial Court. One of the accused died during the trial. The High Court upheld the conviction of four accused while acquitting one.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted five of the eight accused, including the appellants, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal was filed before the High Court, which upheld the conviction of four of the accused while setting aside the conviction of one. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging their conviction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the IPC: This section deals with the concept of “unlawful assembly” and states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.
• Section 141 of the IPC: This section defines an “unlawful assembly” as an assembly of five or more persons with a common unlawful object.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section empowers the police to record statements of witnesses during an investigation.
• Section 162 of the CrPC: This section governs the use of statements made to the police during an investigation, specifying that such statements cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The section also explains that an omission to state a fact can amount to a contradiction if it is significant and relevant.
  
  “162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence .—(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re -examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross -examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of Section 27 of that Act. Explanation .—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub -section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.”
• Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section outlines the procedure for cross-examining a witness regarding previous statements made in writing. It requires that if a witness is to be contradicted by a prior written statement, their attention must be drawn to the specific parts of the statement used for contradiction.
  
  “145. Cross -examination as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may be cross -examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”
• Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with impeaching the credit of a witness, including by proving former statements inconsistent with their current testimony.
  
  “155. Impeaching credit of witness.—The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him — (1) ….…………………………………… (2) ……………………………………… (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Trial Court’s finding that PW-1 was an eyewitness was incorrect.
• They contended that the evidence of PW-3 was unreliable due to significant omissions and contradictions.
• The appellants submitted that the testimony of PW-4 was not credible.
• They highlighted that PW-6 admitted to a prior enmity between the deceased and the accused.
• They argued that the evidence of “last seen together” from PW-7 and PW-9 was not dependable.
• They pointed out that the contradictions in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses were not properly recorded.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the evidence showed the deceased was last seen with the accused.
• The State submitted that the motive for the crime was established.
• The State contended that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ meticulous scrutiny of the witness testimonies, highlighting the procedural lapses in recording contradictions and omissions, which ultimately swayed the Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC was valid, given that the High Court only confirmed the conviction of four accused, which is less than the five required for an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC.
2. Whether the Trial Court properly recorded the contradictions in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, was reliable enough to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The following table summarizes how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table summarizes how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the prosecution’s evidence and the misapplication of Section 149 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the importance of following the correct legal procedures for recording contradictions in witness testimonies, as laid down in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC. The Court also highlighted that the “last seen together” theory is not sufficient to convict the accused if the deceased was seen in the company of others after being with the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, was that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the key eyewitness testimonies were unreliable and that the Trial Court did not follow the correct procedure for recording contradictions. The court also noted that the High Court incorrectly applied Section 149 of the IPC. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurred with the majority opinion.

“There is one aspect that was not brought to the notice of this Court, which goes to the root of the matter. As can be seen from paragraph 108 of the judgment of the Trial Court, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.”

“The High Court has not held that apart from the present appellants whose conviction was confirmed, others formed part of the unlawful assembly. Hence, there was no unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 of IPC.”

“Therefore, as far as evidence of assault on the deceased is concerned, there is no reliable evidence to show the involvement of the appellants. The only evidence regarding the last seen together is that at 4.00 p.m., on the date of the incident, appellant no. 2 took the deceased on his motorcycle.”

Key Takeaways

✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable witness testimonies in criminal trials.
✓ It highlights the necessity of following the correct procedure for recording contradictions during cross-examination, as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC.
✓ The “last seen together” theory should not be relied upon if the deceased was in the company of other persons after being with the accused.
✓ Section 149 of the IPC requires an unlawful assembly of five or more persons.
✓ This case underscores the importance of the prosecution establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty unless their custody is required concerning some other offense.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC is not valid if there is no unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of the IPC. Additionally, the judgment reinforces the importance of the correct procedure for recording contradictions during cross-examination and emphasizes that the “last seen together” theory is not sufficient to convict the accused if the deceased was seen in the company of other persons after being with the accused. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 149 of the IPC and the standards for evaluating witness testimonies and the “last seen together” theory in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants in this murder case highlights the critical importance of reliable evidence and the correct application of legal principles. The Court’s meticulous scrutiny of witness testimonies, coupled with its emphasis on proper procedure, underscores the need for fairness and accuracy in criminal trials. This judgment serves as a reminder that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that convictions cannot stand on unreliable evidence or misapplied legal provisions.