Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Sudhir Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan (31 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 31 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 745
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when key eyewitnesses turn hostile and the primary evidence is a dying declaration that doesn’t identify the assailants? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal. The court examined the reliability of a dying declaration and circumstantial evidence in the absence of supporting eyewitness testimony. The bench comprised of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the judgment.

Case Background

On April 17, 2003, at approximately 9:45 a.m., Rajendra Sahu arrived at the auto-stand near Baheti Hospital in his auto-rickshaw. Around 12 noon, while sitting in his auto-rickshaw, he noticed a Maruti 800 car with three occupants. One occupant signaled him to approach the car. As Rajendra Sahu neared the car, the appellant, Sudhir Kumar Jain, allegedly fired a shot at him with a country-made pistol, causing injuries above his navel. Following the incident, the car sped away. Iqbal (PW-4) transported the injured Rajendra Sahu to the hospital. A statement (parcha bayan) was recorded by ASI (PW-22) based on which FIR was registered under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After Rajendra Sahu died, the FIR was altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The post-mortem, conducted by Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-26), determined that the cause of death was shock due to firearm injuries.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Sudhir Kumar Jain under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act, based on the dying declaration of the deceased (parcha bayan), the testimony of Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-18), and the recovery of a country-made pistol. The High Court of Rajasthan affirmed this conviction. The case reached the Supreme Court of India as a criminal appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act: This deals with the possession and use of illegal arms.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Appellant’s (Sudhir Kumar Jain) Counsel:
  • The dying declaration (parcha bayan) of the deceased does not name the assailants.
  • Key eyewitnesses turned hostile, undermining the prosecution’s case.
  • The testimony of Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-18) was unreliable due to significant delays in recording his statement.
  • The recovered country-made pistol was not in working condition, casting doubt on its use in the crime.
• Respondent’s (State of Rajasthan) Counsel:
  • The dying declaration of the deceased, though not naming the assailants, provides a clear account of the incident.
  • The testimony of Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-18) corroborates the dying declaration.
  • The recovery of the country-made pistol from the appellant and the ballistic report links the appellant to the crime.
  • The Maruti car was recovered in front of the appellant’s father’s house, which is a link to the crime.

[TABLE] of Submissions by Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act can be sustained based on the evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• Evidence of PW-18 Constable: The Court noted the delay of 18 days in recording the statement of PW-18 and his failure to report the incident to the police station immediately.
• Recovery of Country-made Pistol: The Court noted that the witnesses to the recovery of the pistol did not support the prosecution.
• Ballistic Report: The ballistic expert’s report indicated that the recovered pistol was not in working condition.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The evidence of PW-18 Constable was deemed unreliable due to the delay in recording his statement and his failure to report the incident immediately.
• The recovery of the country-made pistol was not supported by the witnesses and the ballistic report indicated that the pistol was not in working condition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of credible evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. The fact that all eyewitnesses turned hostile significantly weakened the prosecution’s position. The unreliability of Constable Suresh Kumar’s testimony, due to the unexplained delay in recording his statement and his failure to report the incident immediately, further eroded the prosecution’s case. Additionally, the fact that the recovered country-made pistol was not in working condition raised substantial doubt about its use in the commission of the crime.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the dying declaration did not name the assailants, the eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the evidence of PW-18 was unreliable. The court also found that the recovered weapon was not in working condition, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s case. The Court stated, “Considering the totality of the circumstances and that all the eye witnesses have turned hostile and the FIR does not mention the names of the accused coupled with other circumstances, we hold that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court also noted, “The Trial Court and the High Court erred in basing the conviction upon evidence of PW-18 Constable and which in our view cannot be sustained.” The Court further stated, “The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• The importance of credible eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.
• The need for timely and reliable statements from witnesses.
• The significance of the condition of recovered weapons as evidence.
• The high burden of proof required for criminal convictions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and acquitted the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when key eyewitnesses turn hostile, the primary evidence (dying declaration) does not identify the assailants, and other evidence is unreliable or doubtful. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant gaps or doubts in the evidence can lead to acquittal.

Conclusion

In the case of Sudhir Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant, Sudhir Kumar Jain, due to a lack of credible evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony, the timely recording of statements, and the condition of recovered weapons in criminal cases. This judgment highlights the high standard of proof required for criminal convictions and the consequences of a weak prosecution case.