LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused was part of an unlawful assembly with the common objective of murder.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Amrika Bai vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
Judgment Date: 29 March 2019
Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 289
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can inconsistencies in witness testimonies lead to the acquittal of an accused, even in a serious charge like murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was alleged to be part of an unlawful assembly that committed murder. The Court examined the credibility of witness statements and the role of the accused in the crime. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira Banerjee, with Justice N.V. Ramana authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On the morning of August 12, 1989, Kapil, the deceased, was taking his cattle for grazing. The cattle jumped on the door of Amrika Bai’s (the appellant) house, which led to Amrika Bai abusing Kapil. Later, on his way back, Kapil questioned Amrika Bai about the abuse. Amrika Bai, under the pretext of touching his feet, caught hold of Kapil. Subsequently, other accused individuals, armed with deadly weapons, arrived and fatally assaulted Kapil. An FIR was registered on August 12, 1989, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 12, 1989 | Incident occurred where Kapil was assaulted and killed. |
| August 12, 1989 | FIR was registered against the accused. |
| August 16, 1989 | FIR was forwarded to the Magistrate. |
| June 11, 1993 | Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur convicted the appellant. |
| April 26, 2010 | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the appeal of the appellant. |
| March 29, 2019 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, 14 individuals were accused in the case, and the trial court convicted 10 of them. During the appeal process at the High Court, one accused died, and five others were released on special reprieve. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the remaining accused, including Amrika Bai. Amrika Bai then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder, read with Section 149 of the IPC, which pertains to the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of the common object. The appellant was also convicted under Section 147 of the IPC, which deals with the punishment for rioting. Section 141 of the IPC defines an unlawful assembly.
The relevant sections are as follows:
-
Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object to overawe by criminal force, resist the execution of any law, commit mischief or criminal trespass, or deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or enforce any right or claim.
-
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
-
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—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 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the conviction was based on insufficient and unreliable evidence.
- It was contended that there was a delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, violating Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
- The appellant submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent, contradictory, and made with the intention to falsely implicate her.
Respondent-State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned and did not warrant any interference.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction based on insufficient evidence | No credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime. | Appellant |
| Conviction based on insufficient evidence | Witness testimonies are contradictory and unreliable. | Appellant |
| Violation of Section 157 Cr.P.C. | Delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate. | Appellant |
| Judgment is well-reasoned | High Court judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. | Respondent-State |
| Judgment is well-reasoned | Sufficient evidence to convict the accused. | Respondent-State |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant highlighted the inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and the procedural lapse in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, which was a key factor in raising doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common objective of murdering the deceased.
The Court also examined whether the appellant’s actions constituted an offense under Section 149 of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common objective of murdering the deceased. | No | The Court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the appellant’s role. The Court also noted that the appellant was unarmed and that the deceased was physically strong, making it unlikely that she could have single-handedly held him to facilitate the assault. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
- Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 203 – This case was cited to emphasize that mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not make a person liable unless they share a common object as specified in Section 141 of the IPC and are actuated by that object.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 203 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to reiterate that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not enough for conviction; a common object must be proven. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Conviction based on insufficient evidence. | The Court agreed that the evidence against the appellant was not credible due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies. |
| Violation of Section 157 Cr.P.C. | The Court noted the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. |
| Appellant was part of an unlawful assembly. | The Court held that the appellant’s involvement as a member of the unlawful assembly was doubtful, and therefore, the question of her having a common object for murder did not arise. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 203:* The Supreme Court followed this authority to emphasize that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not sufficient for conviction. The prosecution must prove the common object and that the accused was actuated by that common object.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate. The Court found the prosecution’s story regarding the appellant’s role in the crime to be doubtful. The fact that the appellant was unarmed and the deceased was physically strong also weighed against the prosecution’s version of events.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistencies in witness testimonies | 40% |
| Unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR | 30% |
| Doubtful role of the appellant | 20% |
| Appellant being unarmed and deceased being strong | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court noted the inconsistencies in the witness testimonies regarding the appellant’s role. While one witness stated that the appellant merely held the deceased, another stated that she assaulted him with a lathi, and a third stated that she brought a tangia (axe) from inside the house and handed it over to another accused. The Court found it implausible that the appellant could have single-handedly held the deceased, who was described as a well-built man, to facilitate his assault. The Court also noted the delay of four days in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, which raised doubts about the prosecution’s case. The Court concluded that the appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly was doubtful, and therefore, she could not be convicted under Section 149 of the IPC.
The Court stated, “The abovementioned inconsistencies found in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses create a doubt regarding the credibility of their testimonies vis-à-vis the role of the appellant.”
The Court further observed, “Further, this Court fails to fathom a scenario wherein the appellant single handedly caught hold of the deceased facilitating his assault, particularly when P.W.8 has categorically stated in her cross-examination that the deceased was well built, such that he could have taken down two to three persons himself.”
The Court also stated, “Moreover, the fact that the FIR was registered on 12.08.1989 but was forwarded to the Magistrate only on 16.08.1989, after a delay of 4 days, becomes significant in light of the abovementioned inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution with respect to the appellant.”
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- Inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of an accused, even in serious cases like murder.
- Mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not sufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove a common object.
- Delays in procedural aspects, such as forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
- The physical capabilities of the accused and the victim can be considered in evaluating the plausibility of the prosecution’s version of events.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the offenses under Section 302 read with Section 149, and Section 147 of the IPC.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a person to be convicted as part of an unlawful assembly, mere presence is not sufficient; there must be a common object, and the person must be actuated by that common object. This reinforces the existing legal position as stated in Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 203.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court acquitted Amrika Bai, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove her involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted the importance of credible witness testimonies and adherence to procedural norms in criminal trials. This case underscores the principle that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not enough for conviction; a common object and active participation must be established.