Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence: Khema @ Khem Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 10 August 2022

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can inconsistencies in witness testimonies and doubts regarding evidence recovery lead to the acquittal of the accused in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, examining the reliability of witness accounts and the validity of evidence presented by the prosecution. This case highlights the importance of meticulous scrutiny of evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on April 27, 2002, when Prakash and his wife, Kripa, were attacked while going to invite relatives for their daughters’ wedding scheduled for May 1, 2002. The attack took place near the house of the accused, Deepi. According to the prosecution, the accused, including Deepi, Kanhaiya, Khema @ Khem Chandra, Jasram, Balveer, and Mahaveer, emerged from Deepi’s house armed with weapons. Deepi and Kanhaiya had farsa (a type of axe), Khema had a club, and Jasram, Balveer, and Mahaveer had country-made pistols. They allegedly assaulted Prakash, throwing him onto the road. When Prakash’s brother, Inder (PW-2), sister Omwati, and wife Kripa tried to intervene, they were also attacked. Inder sustained a gunshot injury. An FIR was lodged based on information provided by Omveer (PW-1), another brother of Prakash, at 10:10 am on April 27, 2002. The accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also under the Arms Act, 1959.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellants for offenses under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the trial court’s decision. Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the concept of common intention in unlawful assembly. It states, “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.”
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the attempt to murder.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the discovery of facts based on information received from an accused. It states, “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

These provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are fundamental to establishing criminal liability for the accused, while Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, governs the admissibility of evidence related to discoveries made based on information from the accused.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they were falsely implicated in the case.
• It was submitted that Omveer (PW-1), who was presented as an eyewitness, could not have witnessed the incident as he admitted to being inside his house when the incident occurred.
• It was argued that Inder (PW-2), the injured witness, was a planted witness, and there were material contradictions regarding the timing of his injuries and medical examination.
• The recoveries of weapons at the instance of the appellants were also false and unreliable.
• The prosecution failed to examine Vijay Singh, brother of the deceased, who first informed the police about the incident, and the station diary entry based on his call was not produced.
• The prosecution did not examine Kripa and Omwati, wife and sister of the deceased, who were also said to have received injuries, and failed to examine independent witnesses despite their availability.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that the testimonies of Omveer (PW-1) and Inder (PW-2) should not be discarded merely because they are relatives of the deceased.
• The testimonies of Omveer (PW-1) and Inder (PW-2) were duly corroborated by the recovery of incriminating material based on the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• The State contended that the findings of the trial court and the High Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the Supreme Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact.

Arguments on behalf of the First Informant:

• It was argued that Inder (PW-2) was an injured witness, and his testimony has special evidentiary status.
• It was contended that the findings of the trial court and the High Court were based upon proper appreciation of evidence, and this Court should not re-appraise or review the evidence.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellants based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the testimonies of Omveer (PW-1) and Inder (PW-2) were reliable and credible.
3. Whether the recoveries of weapons were valid and could be relied upon.
4. Whether the prosecution suppressed any material evidence that could have affected the outcome of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Jarnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [CITATION] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION], acknowledging that the testimony of an injured witness has special evidentiary status. However, it found Inder (PW-2)’s testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies.
• The Court referred to Smt. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab [CITATION], noting that it would not normally re-appraise evidence but could do so in exceptional circumstances.
• The Court applied the principles from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [CITATION], classifying Inder (PW-2)’s testimony as “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable,” requiring corroboration.
• The Court cited Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh [CITATION], recognizing that previous enmity is a double-edged sword, raising the possibility of false implication.
• The Court also relied on Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash [CITATION], Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Another [CITATION], Mithilesh Kumari and Another v. Prem Behari Khare [CITATION], State of U.P. v. Babul Nath [CITATION], and Pattakkal Kunhikoya (Dead) By LRs. v.Thoopiyakkal Koya and Another [CITATION], to justify its interference with concurrent findings of fact due to errors in the appreciation of evidence.
• The Court relied on Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat [CITATION], stating that when the High Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence, this Court would be entitled to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony: The Court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of Omveer (PW-1) and Inder (PW-2). Omveer’s testimony was deemed unreliable as he admitted to not witnessing the incident directly. Inder’s testimony, while from an injured witness, was also found to be inconsistent regarding the timing of his injuries and medical examination.
• Doubtful Recoveries: The Court noted that the recoveries of weapons were not reliable due to the lack of independent witnesses and failure to produce memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• Suppression of Evidence: The prosecution’s failure to examine Vijay Singh, who first informed the police, and the non-production of the station diary entry raised doubts about the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted the failure to examine independent witnesses.
• Lack of Corroboration: The Court emphasized that Inder (PW-2)’s testimony, being “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable,” required strong corroboration, which was absent in this case.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual inconsistencies and doubts in the evidence (60%) than by purely legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Consistent Testimony: Witness testimonies must be consistent and reliable. Inconsistencies can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Reliability of Evidence: Recoveries of evidence must be conducted transparently with independent witnesses and proper documentation.
• Duty to Present All Evidence: The prosecution has a duty to present all relevant evidence, including the examination of all material witnesses and the production of relevant documents.
• Scrutiny of Injured Witnesses: While the testimony of an injured witness has special evidentiary status, it is not absolute and must be scrutinized for inconsistencies.
• Interference with Concurrent Findings: The Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if there are errors of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The judgment and order of the High Court and the trial court were quashed and set aside.
• The appellants were acquitted of all the charges.
• Deepi, who was on bail, had his bail bonds cancelled.
• The rest of the accused were directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when there are significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, doubtful recoveries of evidence, and suppression of material evidence by the prosecution. This case emphasizes the importance of a thorough and transparent investigation and the need for credible evidence to secure a conviction. The judgment reiterates the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of any doubt must be given to the accused. The Court’s willingness to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in cases where there is a misreading of evidence or errors of law or procedure also reinforces the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter of justice.