Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Shishpal vs. State (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence and the principle of common intention.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Shishpal @ Shishu vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Judgment Date: 11 July 2022

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 620
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
Can a conviction be sustained when the primary evidence is unreliable and the prosecution fails to establish the essential elements of the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the principle of common intention. The Court overturned the conviction, citing significant doubts in the prosecution’s case and the lack of credible evidence linking the accused to the crime. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

On January 10, 2010, at approximately 8:00 PM, the deceased and PW4 were standing in a queue outside a liquor shop. According to the prosecution, A-2 (not before the Supreme Court) attacked the deceased with a knife, while the appellants, A-1 and A-3, held him. The prosecution alleged that all the accused dragged the deceased from the queue and committed the crime. The appellants, Shishpal @ Shishu (A-1) and Roshan (A-3), were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the conviction was upheld by the High Court of Delhi. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The High Court of Delhi upheld the conviction, raising doubts about the identification of A-1 and A-2 and the motive behind the crime. The High Court noted that there was no clear reason for the accused to go to the deceased’s house, casting doubt on the prosecution’s theory of motive. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 34 of the IPC states:
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The Court also considered Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, which defines “fact” and includes “reputation” as a fact.

The Court also considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the admissibility of information leading to discovery.

The Court noted that Section 34 of the IPC does not create a substantive offense but establishes a principle of constructive liability. The prosecution must prove the common intention of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the accused had a common intention to commit the murder, relying on the testimonies of PW1, PW3, and PW4. They also presented evidence of recovery of the murder weapon based on the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution contended that the accused were present at the scene of the crime and participated in the act.

The defense argued that the prosecution’s witnesses were unreliable and that there was no concrete evidence to prove the common intention or the participation of the accused in the crime. They highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the fact that some key witnesses turned hostile. The defense also argued that the recovery of the murder weapon was suspicious.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the offense punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is reliable and sufficient to establish the common intention of the accused.

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:

✓ Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Admn., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the need for caution when dealing with stock witnesses of the police. The Court noted that in this case, the vital links of the prosecution case were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

✓ Rajesh Yadav and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 150: This case was cited to highlight the principle of appreciation of evidence, categorizing it into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

✓ Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. The Court also discussed the three categories of witnesses: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

✓ Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545: The Court discussed the scope of Section 34 of the IPC, emphasizing the need to prove common intention and an act in furtherance of that intention.

✓ R. v. Gorachand Gope, 1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16: This case was referred to understand the historical development of Section 34 of the IPC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction of the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses were unreliable, and there was no concrete evidence to establish the common intention required under Section 34 of the IPC. The Court also highlighted that the High Court should have extended the benefit of doubt after doubting the evidence of PW1 and not accepting the evidence of PW3.

The Court observed that the High Court erred in drawing an adverse inference from the accused’s refusal to participate in the test identification parade, especially since the witnesses had already seen the accused in the police station. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the onus cannot be shifted to the accused.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Admn., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367: The Court followed the principle laid down in this case that the court has to be very cautious about the investigation done by the police when stock witnesses are produced.

✓ Rajesh Yadav and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 150: The Court followed the principle laid down in this case on appreciation of evidence.

✓ Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981: The Court followed the principle laid down in this case that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence.

✓ Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545: The Court applied the principles of Section 34 of IPC as explained in this case.

✓ R. v. Gorachand Gope, 1866 SCC OnLine Cal 16: The Court used this case to understand the historical development of Section 34 IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of credible evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the common intention of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a crucial element for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court also noted the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses and the suspicious nature of the weapon recovery.

The Court was also concerned about the adverse inference drawn by the lower courts based on the accused’s refusal to participate in the test identification parade. The Court highlighted that the witnesses had already seen the accused in the police station, making the test identification parade a mere formality.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the accused were indeed involved but the evidence was insufficient. However, the Court rejected these interpretations due to the lack of reliable evidence and the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard in this case.

The Court stated:
“On the above analysis, we are inclined to set aside the conviction rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (East) FTC: E-Court, Karkardooma Court, Delhi as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The appeals stand allowed and the appellants are directed to be set at liberty.”

“It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both the Courts have fixed the onus on the accused.”

“There has to be adequate material to fasten the appellants on the basis of constructive liability as Section 34 IPC is nothing but a rule of evidence.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity.
• Courts must be cautious when dealing with stock witnesses of the police.
• Common intention under Section 34 of the IPC must be proven by the prosecution.
• Adverse inferences should not be drawn from the refusal of the accused to participate in a test identification parade if the witnesses have already seen the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also emphasizes the need for caution when dealing with stock witnesses and the importance of establishing common intention under Section 34 of the IPC. The Court reiterated that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused in this case underscores the importance of credible evidence and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court’s analysis of the witnesses, the lack of proof of common intention, and the suspicious nature of the weapon recovery led to the overturning of the conviction. This case serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the necessity to protect individual liberties.