Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of evidence: Naresh vs State of Haryana (2023) INSC 889

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 9, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 889

Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitness testimony is inconsistent and the evidence is questionable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the conviction of three individuals. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was marred by significant inconsistencies, a lack of credible evidence, and a flawed investigation. This judgment highlights the importance of reliable evidence and a thorough investigation in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, delivered the judgment. Justice Aravind Kumar authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Ajay, who was shot on April 22, 2016. The prosecution alleged that Ajay and his cousin Suraj were chased by multiple individuals on motorcycles. One of the individuals, Pawan, allegedly fired a country-made revolver at Ajay, resulting in his death. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of Mohit @ Kala (PW-9), a cousin of the deceased, and CCTV footage.

The initial FIR was registered under Sections 148, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. After Ajay’s death, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added. Six accused persons were charged, with some being tried separately under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Sessions Court convicted the accused, which was later affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The current appeal was filed by accused Nos. 4, 5, and 6.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This conviction was based primarily on the testimony of PW-9, the recovery of motorcycles, and the alleged motive. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging their conviction based on several grounds, including inconsistencies in the evidence and a lack of proof of common intention.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of their common object. It states:
  
  “149. 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 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that confessions made to a police officer cannot be used as evidence against the accused. It says:
  
  “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
• Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless made in the presence of a magistrate. It states:
  
  “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.”
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section provides an exception to Sections 25 and 26, allowing the admissibility of information that leads to the discovery of a fact.
• Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence.
• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines an unlawful assembly.

These provisions are crucial for determining the guilt of the accused and the admissibility of evidence in the case.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

• Naresh @ Nehru (A-4):
  • The trial court and High Court erred in convicting him based on the statement of PW-9, who did not initially name him.
  • The CCTV footage did not conform to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and did not show his presence.
  • No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and PW-9 identified him for the first time in court.
  • PW-9 was shocked while giving his statement, making his testimony unreliable.
  • He had no common object with the main accused, Pawan.
  • PW-9 was an interested witness, being a close relative of the deceased, and his testimony had discrepancies.
  • PW-9 did not inform the police about the Splendor vehicle driven by him.
  • The CCTV footage was recorded on a mobile phone and could have been tampered with.
  • The motive attributed to him was weak, and he was not armed with any weapon.
  • There was an unexplained delay in recording PW-9’s statement.
  • His confessional statement was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Irshad and Sonu Kumar (A-5 and A-6):
  • The courts below erred in not considering that common object needs to be proved for Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to apply.
  • The prosecution failed to prove that they were aware of Pawan’s possession of the pistol and his intention to kill Ajay.
  • Their involvement in the unlawful assembly and sharing a common object could not be inferred.
  • The CCTV footage was unclear and did not inspire confidence.
  • They were not residents of the village where the incident occurred, and this was not mentioned in PW-9’s initial statement.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Haryana):

• The prosecution argued that the conviction was based on the reliable testimony of PW-9, the recovery of the motorcycles, and the motive for the crime.
• They contended that the accused shared a common object to kill Ajay, and their actions were in furtherance of that object.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence on record, including the testimony of PW-9, the CCTV footage, and the confessional statements of the accused.
3. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven that the appellants shared a common object to commit the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21* – The Court used this case to emphasize that a “sterling witness” must have unassailable testimony, which was not the case with PW-9.
• Mehboob Ali & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 14 SCC 640* – The Court relied on this case to highlight that confessional statements made to police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Indra Dalal vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 31* – The Court cited this case to reiterate that statements given while in police custody are inadmissible.
• Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and Others (2012) 3 SCC 221* – The Court used this case to explain the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the need to prove a common object, which was absent in this case.
• Lalji v. State of U.P. [(1989) 1 SCC 437* – The Court used this case to explain how to gather common object of unlawful assembly.
• Dharam Pal v. State of U.P. [(1975) 2 SCC 596* – The Court used this case to explain the principle of vicarious liability.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Inconsistencies in the Testimony of PW-9: The court found that the testimony of PW-9, the primary eyewitness, was riddled with inconsistencies. He did not name the appellants in the initial FIR, failed to identify the driver of the Splendor motorcycle, and changed his version of events multiple times. These inconsistencies raised serious doubts about his credibility and presence at the scene of the crime.
• Inadmissibility of the CCTV Footage: The CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution was deemed inadmissible as it did not conform to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The faces of the assailants were not clear, and the footage was recorded on a mobile phone, raising concerns about tampering.
• Invalidity of Confessional Statements: The confessional statements of the accused, recorded while in police custody, were deemed inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Lack of Proof of Common Object: The prosecution failed to establish that the appellants shared a common object to commit the crime. The motive attributed to them was weak, and there was no evidence to suggest they were aware of Pawan’s intention to kill Ajay.
• Defective Investigation: The Court noted several lapses in the investigation, including the failure to record the statement of Suraj (who was with the deceased) and the failure to produce the mobile phone or laptop used to record the CCTV footage.
• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: There was a lack of corroborative evidence to support PW-9’s testimony. No weapons were recovered from the appellants, and their presence at the scene was not conclusively proven.

The Court emphasized that the evidence presented was not of “sterling quality” and did not inspire confidence. The cumulative effect of these factors led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the overwhelming lack of reliable evidence. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The Supreme Court stated:

“PW-9’s testimony was shrouded with inconsistencies and he had not named the appellants in the FIR and had failed to identify Naresh @ Nehru as the driver of the Splendor motorcycle.”

“The courts below have relied on CCTV footage to convict the appellants and co-accused persons. However, we are of the considered view that said evidence could not have been relied upon, as it was infested with serious doubts…”

“The confessional statement of the accused relied upon by the prosecution was admittedly recorded after the arrest of those accused persons when accused 4, 5, and 6 were in police custody. Hence, said statement would become inadmissible…”

Key Takeaways

• The importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation in criminal cases.
• The need for consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony.
• The strict adherence to the rules of evidence, particularly regarding electronic records and confessional statements.
• The necessity of proving a common object for convictions under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This judgment underscores the importance of a robust legal process that ensures justice is served based on credible and reliable evidence. It also highlights the need for law enforcement agencies to conduct thorough and unbiased investigations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the appellants if they were not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on inconsistent eyewitness testimony, inadmissible electronic evidence, and invalid confessional statements. The judgment reinforces the importance of proving a common object under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and emphasizes the need for a thorough and unbiased investigation. This case does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of Naresh @ Nehru, Irshad, and Sonu Kumar, accused of murder, due to significant inconsistenciesin the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found that the testimony of the primary eyewitness was unreliable, the CCTV footage was inadmissible, and the confessional statements were invalid. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused shared a common object to commit the crime. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of credible evidence and thorough investigation in criminal cases, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The case underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that a conviction cannot be sustained on shaky foundations.