Date of the Judgment: 07 December 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1102
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Abhay S. Oka, J.
Can inconsistencies in witness testimony lead to the acquittal of accused individuals in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the appellants due to significant doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred when the complainant Jagannath (P.W.1), his wife Kamlabai (P.W.8), their son Laxminarayan (deceased), and two daughters-in-law, Suganbai (P.W.10) and Sharmilabai (P.W.11), were sleeping at their house near a tube-well in their field. According to the prosecution, around midnight, the accused arrived and began assaulting Jagannath. When Kamlabai tried to intervene, she was also attacked. Their son, Laxminarayan, came to their defense and was also assaulted. Although he tried to flee, the accused chased and continued to assault him. Laxminarayan sustained severe injuries and died while being transported to the police station. An Executive Magistrate, P.W.18, purportedly recorded a statement from Jagannath as a dying declaration.

The Trial Court found all nine accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. Accused no.1, Ranglal, and accused no.4, Prem Singh, were also convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC for assaulting Jagannath and Kamlabai, and under Section 148 of the IPC. All accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, along with separate punishments for other offenses.

Timeline

Date Event
Around Midnight Accused arrived and assaulted Jagannath (P.W.1) and Kamlabai (P.W.8).
Around Midnight Laxminarayan (deceased) intervened and was assaulted.
During transit to police station Laxminarayan died from his injuries.
Not Specified Trial Court convicted all nine accused.
31st July 2009 High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld conviction of some accused, acquitted others.
22nd January 2010 Supreme Court granted bail to appellant no.1 (accused no.2) in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010.
17th January 2011 Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2010.
07 December 2022 Supreme Court acquitted the remaining accused in the appeals.

Course of Proceedings

The accused filed separate appeals against the Trial Court’s judgment. During the pendency of the appeals, accused no.4, Prem Singh, passed away. The High Court acquitted accused no.1, Ranglal; accused no.5, Bhagwan Singh; accused no.6, Kamal Singh; accused no.7, Benu; and accused no.8, Lakhan. However, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants in these two appeals. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that accused no.2, who is appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010, had passed away.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
  • Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the concept of constructive liability, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of that assembly at the time of the commission of the offense is guilty of that offense.
  • Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
  • Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
  • Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the use of a former statement by a witness to contradict their testimony.
  • Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC): This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Employee: ARIES vs. Devendra Joshi (2018)

Arguments

The appellants’ counsel argued that the conviction was based solely on the testimonies of P.W.1 Jagannath and P.W.8 Kamlabai, who are interested witnesses, being the parents of the deceased. They highlighted material omissions and contradictions in their statements, suggesting that they may not have witnessed the incident as claimed. The counsel also pointed out that while P.W.1 and P.W.8 ascribed the same role to all the accused, the High Court had disbelieved their version for some accused but not for the appellants. They argued that on the ground of parity, the appellants should also have been acquitted.

The State argued that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.10 and P.W.11, who were injured eyewitnesses. They contended that both the Trial Court and the High Court had believed the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.8, and thus, there was no reason to interfere with the findings.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellants’ Argument: Inconsistent Testimony
  • P.W.1 and P.W.8 are interested witnesses.
  • Material omissions and contradictions in their statements.
  • Doubt whether they witnessed the incident.
  • High Court disbelieved their version for some accused but not for appellants.
  • Parity demands acquittal of appellants.
State’s Argument: Reliable Testimony
  • No reason to disbelieve P.W.10 and P.W.11, injured eyewitnesses.
  • Both courts believed P.W.1 and P.W.8.
  • No reason to interfere with the findings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained based on the evidence presented, given the inconsistencies and doubts raised regarding the testimonies of the key witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Treatment and Reasoning
Whether the conviction of the appellants can be sustained based on the evidence presented? The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court noted significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.8, the main witnesses. The Court also noted that the High Court had acquitted other accused based on the same testimonies, raising doubts about the reliability of the evidence.

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific cases or books relied upon by the court. However, it does refer to the following legal provisions:

  • Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section was used to highlight the contradictions in P.W.1’s testimony by referring to his earlier statement.
  • Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC): This section was used to point out the inconsistencies between P.W.1’s statement to the police and his testimony in court.
Authority Court How it was used
Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Supreme Court of India Used to contradict P.W.1’s testimony with his earlier statement.
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) Supreme Court of India Used to highlight inconsistencies between P.W.1’s police statement and court testimony.

Judgment

Submission of the Parties Treatment by the Court
Appellants’ Submission: Inconsistent Testimony The Court agreed that the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.8 were inconsistent and unreliable, and that the High Court’s differential treatment of the accused was not justified.
State’s Submission: Reliable Testimony The Court rejected the State’s submission, finding the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.8 to be unreliable and insufficient to sustain the conviction.
See also  Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Rice Mill Deficit Case: Dwarika Das Rathi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018)

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court used this provision to highlight contradictions in P.W.1’s testimony, demonstrating that his earlier statement did not align with his court testimony.
  • Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC): The Court used this provision to point out the inconsistencies between P.W.1’s statement to the police and his testimony in court, further undermining his credibility as a witness.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the key witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.8. The Court noted that the High Court had already acquitted several other accused based on the same testimonies, which raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence. The Court also emphasized the fact that P.W.1 and P.W.8 were interested witnesses, being the parents of the deceased, and their testimonies needed careful scrutiny. The Court also took into account the fact that P.W.1 had not named five of the accused in his statement to the Executive Magistrate which further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted that there was a serious discrepancy about the weapons of assault.

Sentiment Percentage
Inconsistencies in witness testimony 40%
Contradictions in witness statements 30%
High Court’s differential treatment of accused 20%
Interested nature of witnesses 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

Issue: Can the conviction be sustained based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8?

↓

Step 1: Court examines testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.8

↓

Step 2: Court identifies inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements.

↓

Step 3: Court notes that High Court acquitted other accused based on same testimonies.

↓

Step 4: Court concludes testimonies are unreliable.

↓

Conclusion: Conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.

The court considered the following points:

  • The testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.8 were inconsistent and contradictory.
  • The High Court had already acquitted several accused based on the same testimonies.
  • P.W.1 and P.W.8 were interested witnesses, being the parents of the deceased.
  • There was a serious discrepancy about the weapons of assault.
  • P.W.1’s statement to the Executive Magistrate did not mention five of the accused.

The court stated, “Thus, both P.W.1 and P.W.8 tried to implicate all the nine accused by making omnibus statements.” and “Looking to the admissions given by P.W.8 that she along with P.W.1 were lying down for a period of one hour on the spot where they were assaulted and that fatal assault was made on the deceased after he ran away from the spot, a serious doubt is created whether both of them had seen the actual assault on the deceased.” and “Moreover, there is a serious discrepancy about the weapons of assault.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment, as it was a unanimous decision by the two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

  • Inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of accused individuals.
  • Courts must carefully scrutinize the testimonies of interested witnesses.
  • If a court disbelieves a witness’s testimony for some accused, it should apply the same standard to all accused.
  • Discrepancies in statements, especially regarding crucial details like weapons used, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
See also  Supreme Court Quashes RBI Circular on Stressed Assets: Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (2 April 2019)

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants (accused no.3 Boro and accused no.9 Shyam) be acquitted of the offenses alleged against them. The bail bonds of the two appellants were cancelled. The appeal of appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010 was abated as he had passed away.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there are significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, and when the court finds that the High Court has treated some accused differently based on the same testimonies, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence, especially when it comes from interested witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants in this case due to significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the key witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.8. The court found that the High Court’s differential treatment of the accused was not justified, and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment underscores the importance of reliable witness testimony in criminal cases and the need for courts to carefully scrutinize evidence before convicting an accused.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Evidence
Child Category: Witness Testimony
Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused?
A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the key witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.8, and the fact that the High Court had acquitted other accused based on the same testimonies.

Q: What is the significance of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in this case?
A: Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was used to highlight the contradictions in P.W.1’s testimony by referring to his earlier statement, which weakened his credibility.

Q: What is the significance of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) in this case?
A: Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) was used to point out the inconsistencies between P.W.1’s statement to the police and his testimony in court, further undermining his credibility as a witness.

Q: What does it mean when the court says a witness is an “interested witness”?
A: An “interested witness” is someone who has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, such as a family member of the victim. Their testimony needs to be carefully scrutinized due to the potential for bias.

Q: What does it mean when a court says the prosecution failed to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
A: “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince the court that there is no other logical explanation for the facts except that the accused committed the crime.

Source: Ramcharan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh