Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of evidence and faulty examination: Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam (26 August 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 August 2019
Citation: Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1905 of 2009
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the key evidence against the accused is inconsistent, and the accused was not given a fair chance to explain the charges against them? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to significant flaws in the prosecution’s case and the trial process. This judgment highlights the importance of fair trial procedures and the need for concrete evidence in criminal convictions. The bench comprised of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

On March 17, 1997, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Keramat Ali Maral was attacked at Kalia Hotel, a tea stall. According to the prosecution, Abdul Hai, Abdul Rashid, Imdadul Islam, Rahul Amin, Mofizuddin Islam, and Abdul Rahim Faruki entered the tea stall. It was alleged that Abdul Rashid and Imdadul Islam shot at Keramat Ali with a pistol, while the others attacked him with daggers and swords. Keramat Ali died on the spot. Nazrul Islam, the son of Keramat Ali, filed the First Information Report (FIR), stating that he and other witnesses were present but fled when the accused threatened them with pistols. The FIR also stated that the incident occurred at the “instance and instigation” of Samsul Haque and two other individuals.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accused Nos. 7 to 9 were charged under Sections 302/109 of the IPC. During the trial, accused No. 4 absconded, and accused No. 1 died. The Sessions Judge found accused No. 1 to be the main culprit and also convicted accused Nos. 5 and 6. The convicted accused appealed to the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed their appeals. The State of Assam also appealed against the acquittal of some accused. The Gauhati High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and convicted the acquitted accused. The Supreme Court of India is now hearing appeals from these convictions.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Abetment of a thing.

The Supreme Court also considered the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that the court question the accused on the evidence against them, providing an opportunity to explain.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

Arguments on behalf of Accused No. 9 (Samsul Haque)

• Vague Allegations: The initial complaint vaguely stated that the incident occurred at the “instance and instigation” of accused No. 9 and two others, without specifying how.
• Inconsistent Witness Testimony: Three witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, and PW-6) were deemed “interested” and “inimical” as they were related to the deceased and were accused in the murder of the main accused, Abdul Hai. Their testimonies were inconsistent and exaggerated. PW-3’s statement in the FIR differed from his court testimony, where he claimed accused No. 9 ordered others to attack his father.
• Independent Witness: The only independent witness (PW-1) did not implicate accused No. 9, stating he did not see him at the scene. Another witness (DW-1), present at the scene, also did not mention accused No. 9’s presence.
• Faulty Examination Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The questions asked to accused No. 9 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were inadequate, failing to present the prosecution’s case properly, thus denying him a chance to explain the charges against him.
• Reversal of Acquittal: The trial court’s acquittal should be respected unless it was perverse or unsustainable. The appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if two views are possible.
• Section 34 and Section 107 of the IPC: The ingredients of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC and abetment under Section 107 of the IPC are distinct. A person charged with abetment (Section 109 IPC) cannot be convicted for the main offense under Section 34 of the IPC.

Arguments on behalf of Accused Nos. 2 & 3 (Abdul Rashid and Imdadul Islam)

• Adoption of Arguments: The counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 3 adopted the arguments made on behalf of accused No. 9.
• Medical Evidence: The medical evidence indicated injuries from sharp objects, not gunshots, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that they fired a pistol. No weapons were recovered.
• Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony: There were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the firing of the gun and the roles assigned to the accused.

Arguments on behalf of the State

• Testimony of Related Witnesses: The state relied heavily on the testimonies of related witnesses (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6), arguing that their testimonies were believable.
• FIR Details: The state argued that the FIR clearly stated the involvement of all the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has been able to establish a case against accused No.9 beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the High Court was right in reversing the acquittal of accused no. 2 and 3.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities, ultimately deciding to acquit all the accused.

The Court’s reasoning for acquitting the accused was based on several factors:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the need for concrete evidence. The inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, the lack of implication by the independent witness, and the faulty examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were critical factors. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s claim of gunshot injuries.

The Court quoted: “Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.”

The Court further stated: “The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused.”

The Court also observed: “Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial.”

The Supreme Court did not find any majority or minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Fair Trial: The judgment underscores the importance of a fair trial, where the accused is given a proper opportunity to explain the charges against them.
• Significance of Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The court emphasized the critical role of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in ensuring that all incriminating evidence is put to the accused.
• Need for Concrete Evidence: Criminal convictions must be based on concrete evidence, not just inconsistent witness testimonies or vague allegations.
• Respect for Acquittal Orders: Appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittal orders, especially if the trial court’s view is plausible.
• Independent Witness Testimony: The testimony of independent witnesses carries significant weight in criminal trials.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Samsul Haque, accused No. 9, be released as he was already on bail and his bail bonds were discharged. Abdul Rashid and Imdadul Islam, accused Nos. 2 and 3, were also acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the accused must be given a fair chance to defend themselves by putting all the incriminating evidence to them as per Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and that the court should not convict an accused based on inconsistent witness testimonies and vague allegations. This case reinforces the existing principles of criminal law and does not introduce any new doctrines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused in this case, highlighting the critical need for fair trial procedures and concrete evidence in criminal convictions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and the rights of the accused.