LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and suppression of the original First Information Report (FIR).
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: State of M.P. vs. Ratan Singh & Ors.
Judgment Date: 05 September 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 788
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can inconsistencies in witness testimonies and suppression of crucial evidence lead to the acquittal of accused persons in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. The Court examined whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was justified in overturning the trial court’s conviction of the accused due to significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Case Background
The case arose from a dispute over a pathway between the deceased, Devi Singh, and one Salag Ram. Following a measurement by the Tehsildar, the pathway was opened, but the underlying dispute persisted. On 30 August 1991, at approximately 9:00 am, a group of 18 individuals, including the respondents, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and entered the residence of Khilan Singh, intending to harm Devi Singh. The accused were reportedly armed with farsi (sharp edged objects), lathis, and other weapons. During the incident, Khilan Singh was injured, and Devi Singh, upon intervening, was fatally assaulted. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at 8:30 pm on the same day.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30 August 1991 | Dispute over pathway between Devi Singh and Salag Ram. |
| 30 August 1991, 9:00 am | Alleged assault on Khilan Singh and Devi Singh by 18 individuals, including the respondents. |
| 30 August 1991, 8:30 pm | First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Khilan Singh. |
| 07 November 2001 | Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha convicts the four respondents. |
| 03 February 2010 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquits the accused. |
| 05 September 2018 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by the State of M.P. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted four respondents, namely, Ratan Singh, Chandan Singh, Salag Ram, and Ramesh, for offences under Sections 302, 324, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, however, overturned this decision, acquitting the accused. The State of M.P. then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Deals with the punishment for murder.
- Section 323, Indian Penal Code: Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 324, Indian Penal Code: Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code: Deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
The judgment also refers to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which pertains to the procedure for recording information in cognizable cases, and Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:
- Appellant (State of M.P.):
- The State argued that the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused should be upheld.
- They contended that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Respondents (Accused):
- The respondents supported the High Court’s decision to acquit them.
- They argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and suppression of material facts.
- They highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR, the inconsistent statements of the witnesses, and the suppression of the original FIR lodged by the deceased before his death.
The core of the arguments revolved around the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence and whether the High Court was correct in finding that the evidence was insufficient to convict the accused. The respondents emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish a clear and consistent narrative of the events, raising doubts about their involvement in the crime.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Conviction | Evidence sufficient for conviction. | Inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence, suppression of original FIR. |
| Credibility of Witnesses | Eye-witness testimony is reliable. | Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the incident and its location. |
| Delay in FIR | No specific reason for delay was provided. | Delay in lodging FIR and suppression of original FIR casts doubt on prosecution’s case. |
| Number of Injuries vs. Number of Accused | Discrepancy between number of accused and number of injuries sustained by the deceased. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and suppression of the original First Information Report (FIR).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and suppression of the original First Information Report (FIR). | Upheld the High Court’s decision. | The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the prosecution’s case was not credible due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, suppression of the original FIR, and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court cited the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114 | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized the importance of promptly filed FIRs and the need to assess explanations for delays. | Delay in filing FIR and its effect on the credibility of the prosecution version. |
| Ram Jag v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 201 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that a common-sense view should be taken while ascertaining delays in lodging FIRs. | Delay in filing FIR and its effect on the credibility of the prosecution version. |
| Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 SCC 348 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that only the earliest information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154. | The importance of the first information report and the inadmissibility of a second FIR. |
| Subramaniam v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 415 | Supreme Court of India | Observed that if an FIR is filed after recording the statement of the witnesses, such second information would be inadmissible in evidence. | The inadmissibility of a second FIR. |
| Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of A.P., (2014) 12 SCC 261 | Supreme Court of India | Held that non-treatment of statements of injured witnesses as the first information cast doubt on the prosecution version. | The importance of treating the statements of injured witnesses as the first information. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Delay in lodging the FIR | The Court noted the unexplained delay and the suppression of the original FIR lodged by the deceased, which cast serious doubts on the prosecution’s case. |
| Inconsistent statements of eye witnesses | The Court highlighted the contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eye witnesses, noting that they described different scenes of the offense. |
| Number of injuries vs. number of accused | The Court observed that the number of injuries sustained by the deceased did not align with the claim that 18 people had assaulted him with deadly weapons. |
| Trial Court’s findings | The Court criticized the Trial Court for convicting only four accused without providing specific reasons and for equating the number of accused with the number of injuries. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to emphasize the importance of a promptly filed FIR and the need to explain any delays.
- The Court cited Ram Jag v. State of U.P. [CITATION] to highlight that while delays are not always fatal, they must be assessed with a common-sense view.
- The Court used Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation [CITATION] to underscore that only the earliest information can be considered the FIR, and there cannot be a second FIR.
- The Court referred to Subramaniam v. State of T.N. [CITATION] to show that a second FIR based on witness statements is inadmissible.
- The Court cited Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of A.P. [CITATION] to support its view that the non-treatment of statements of injured witnesses as the first information cast doubt on the prosecution version.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Unexplained Delay in FIR: The significant delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the suppression of the original FIR lodged by the deceased, raised serious questions about the prosecution’s narrative.
- Inconsistent Witness Statements: The conflicting accounts of the incident and its location by the eye witnesses undermined their credibility.
- Discrepancy in Injuries: The limited number of injuries on the deceased did not match the prosecution’s claim of a brutal assault by 18 individuals armed with deadly weapons.
- Trial Court’s Errors: The Trial Court’s flawed reasoning in equating the number of injuries with the number of assailants and its failure to provide specific reasons for convicting only four accused were also considered.
- Suppression of Evidence: The deliberate suppression of the first information report (FIR) lodged by the deceased before his death was a critical factor in the court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Suppression of First FIR | 30% |
| Inconsistent Witness Statements | 30% |
| Unexplained Delay in FIR | 20% |
| Discrepancy in Injuries | 10% |
| Trial Court’s Errors | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was more influenced by the factual inconsistencies and suppression of evidence (60%) than by purely legal considerations (40%).
The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was unreliable due to these factors, and the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant inconsistencies or suppression of evidence can undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the prosecution had failed to meet this standard.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “The prosecution should have come before the Court with clean hands.”
- “The evidence of the prosecution is full of embellishment, fabrication, distortion and suppression of true story.”
- “The view taken by the High Court is one of the possible views in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Timely FIR: The judgment underscores the importance of lodging a First Information Report (FIR) promptly and the need for a plausible explanation for any delays.
- Credibility of Evidence: The judgment highlights that inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
- Suppression of Evidence: The deliberate suppression of material evidence, such as the original FIR, can lead to the rejection of the prosecution’s case.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubts will be resolved in favor of the accused.
- Role of Appellate Courts: The judgment emphasizes the role of appellate courts in re-evaluating evidence and correcting errors made by lower courts.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, and suppression of material evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Change in Law: This judgment reinforces existing principles of criminal law regarding the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution, rather than introducing new legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of M.P., upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was not credible due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, suppression of the original FIR, and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a strong and consistent prosecution case and the need for a thorough and fair trial.