Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of corroborative evidence: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Naveen Kumar (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 04 October 2018

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: N. V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can an individual be convicted of a crime based solely on an eyewitness account that was changed from the initial report, without any other supporting evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the need for corroborative evidence in such cases. The court examined whether the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was correct in acquitting an accused, who was convicted by the trial court, due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Case Background

On September 10, 1999, around 9:30 PM, a violent incident occurred where eight individuals, including the accused-respondent, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with the intention of attacking Ashwani Kumar (PW-1), Ram Pal (PW-2), and three other individuals who later died from their injuries. The attackers were reportedly armed with deadly weapons such as swords, gandasis, hockey sticks, and clutch wires. The victims were ambushed, and the assault was completed within a few minutes. The attackers fled before any alarm could be raised.

The police were notified by telephone at 9:35 PM, and an entry was made in the police station’s records. The injured were taken to the hospital, but Rajiv Kumar, Raj Kumar, and Santokh Singh succumbed to their injuries during treatment. Ashwani Kumar (PW-1) provided a statement to ASI (P.W 29), and during the investigation, the accused persons, including the respondent, were arrested. The respondent allegedly made a disclosure statement that led to the recovery of a clutch wire. After the investigation, seven more individuals were charged with assisting the accused and obstructing evidence.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, relying on the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses Ashwani Kumar (PW-1) and Ram Kumar (PW-2), convicted the accused-respondent along with seven others under Sections 302, 324, 323, 341, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court sentenced the accused-respondent to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, along with other sentences for the remaining offenses.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the accused persons appealed to the High Court. The High Court, finding a lack of sufficient evidence against the accused-respondent and four other accused persons, allowed their appeal and acquitted them. The High Court upheld the conviction of the other two accused persons. Accused no. 5, Ashok Kumar, passed away during the trial, and the proceedings against him were abated.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302 of the IPC: Deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 324 of the IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 323 of the IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 341 of the IPC: Deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.
• Section 148 of the IPC: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the IPC: Deals with every member of unlawful assembly being guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

These sections define the offenses and corresponding penalties for various acts of violence and unlawful assembly. The prosecution argued that the accused persons were part of an unlawful assembly with the common intention of causing harm, making them liable under these provisions of the IPC.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The State argued that the trial court’s conviction was correct, as the eyewitness accounts of Ashwani Kumar (PW-1) and Ram Kumar (PW-2) were supported by medical and forensic evidence.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused-respondent, as the eyewitness testimony, combined with the recovery of the clutch wire based on the accused’s disclosure statement, was sufficient to prove guilt.

Respondent (Naveen Kumar):

• The respondent argued that the High Court’s acquittal was justified, as the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence to implicate him in the crime.
• The respondent emphasized that his name was not mentioned in the initial FIR, and the subsequent inclusion of his name by PW-1 in a later statement was an improvement without any plausible explanation.
• The respondent further contended that the recovery of the clutch wire was not sufficient to prove his culpability, as it was a commonly available item and lacked any specific marks linking it to the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused-respondent based on the lack of corroborative evidence, specifically when the eyewitness testimony was improved upon in a subsequent statement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, the Court considered the following:

• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police during the investigation. The court noted that the statement of PW-1 was improved upon under this section.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): The Court noted that the statement of PW-1 was improved upon under this section, which raised doubts about its credibility and the lack of corroborative evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible and corroborative evidence against the accused-respondent. The Court emphasized that the initial FIR did not mention the accused-respondent, and the subsequent inclusion of his name in a later statement by PW-1 was not adequately explained. The recovery of a common item like a clutch wire, without any specific link to the crime, was deemed insufficient to establish guilt. The Court was also concerned about the fact that the confessional statement was given while the accused was in police custody.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the factual inconsistencies and the lack of corroborative evidence, which weighed more heavily than the legal provisions in this specific case.

The Court emphasized that the accused-respondent’s case could not be equated with that of the convicted accused persons due to the lack of sufficient evidence. The Court stated, “in the absence of compelling reasons, this court is not keen to entertain this appeal challenging the order of acquittal.” The Court also noted, “the High Court has rightfully acquitted the accused -Respondent, as the case of the present respondent cannot be equated with that of the convicted accused persons.” The Court further observed, “the fact of recovery of the clutch wire is not enough to prove the culpability of the accused -Respondent as, a clutch wire is a commonly available material in the market and there was no specific mark on the recovered clutch wire to associate it with the offence.”

The majority opinion, delivered by Justice N.V. Ramana, with Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar concurring, highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases, especially when eyewitness testimony is inconsistent or improved upon in subsequent statements.

Key Takeaways

• Corroborative Evidence is Crucial: In criminal cases, especially those relying on eyewitness testimony, corroborative evidence is essential to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Initial Statements Hold Weight: Initial statements made to the police, such as the FIR, are given significant weight, and subsequent improvements must have a plausible explanation.
• Recovery of Common Items: The recovery of common items without specific links to the crime is not sufficient to prove culpability.
• Confessional Statements in Police Custody: Confessional statements made while in police custody require careful scrutiny.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of an improved eyewitness statement without corroborative evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that initial statements, such as the FIR, hold significant weight, and subsequent improvements must be supported by a plausible explanation and additional evidence. This case upholds the existing legal position that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused-respondent, Naveen Kumar. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to prove the accused’s guilt, particularly noting the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony and the lack of specific links between the accused and the recovered clutch wire. This case highlights the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for consistent and reliable witness statements in criminal trials.