Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to unreliable eyewitness testimony: Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 17 November 2017
Citation: 2017 INSC 989
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Amitava Roy, J.
Can a conviction for murder stand solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose account is riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. The case hinged on the reliability of a single eyewitness account, which the Court found to be severely lacking. The bench, comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and Amitava Roy, delivered the judgment, with Justice Amitava Roy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On February 20, 2000, Premananda Behra (PW12) reported the unnatural death of his brother, Santosh Behera, to the police. Santosh was found hanging from the roof of a shed near his house. Initially, the case was treated as an unnatural death. However, during the investigation, Niranjan Behera (PW1) claimed to have witnessed Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera (the appellant) and Pravati Behera murdering Santosh in his house and then hanging his body in the shed. Following this, the investigation took a turn, leading to the arrest of the appellant and Pravati Behera. Gunahari Behera (PW6) and Makhan Behera (PW8) also reported that PW1 had disclosed to them about witnessing the murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and Pravati Behera under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the same code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction but allowed Pravati Behera to apply for premature release. Both the Trial Court and the High Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was also affirmed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the same code, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court also considered Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, related to giving false information about an offence, though the accused were acquitted of this charge. The court also referred to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which defines “proved”, “disproved”, and “not proved”.

The relevant sections are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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.”
• Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Giving false information respecting an offence committed.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the testimony of PW1, the sole eyewitness, was unreliable, making the conviction illegal.
• The First Information Report (FIR) was filed six days after the incident, which was considered an unexplained delay.
• The alleged motive of an illicit relationship between the accused was not convincingly proven.
• PW1’s conduct was unnatural as he remained silent despite witnessing the murder for about an hour.
• PW1’s silence for three days after the incident was also unexplained.
• PW1 was intoxicated at the time of the incident, and his presence at the scene was doubtful.
• The area was not sufficiently lit, making it unlikely that PW1 could have seen the incident from his house.
• The testimonies of PW5, PW6, and PW8 were hearsay as they learned about the incident from PW1.
• The injuries mentioned in the inquest report and post-mortem report were inconsistent and contradictory.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that PW1’s testimony was coherent and consistent, supported by medical evidence.
• The courts below were justified in relying on PW1’s testimony due to his detailed account of the incident.
• The medical evidence corroborated PW1’s version of the events.
• The testimony of PW1 was supported by PW2 and PW12, who found the deceased’s body hanging.
• The illicit relationship between the accused, as testified by PW1 and PW3, was the motive for the murder.
• The delay in PW1’s disclosure was due to threats from the appellant.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument focused on the improbabilities and inconsistencies in the sole eyewitness’s testimony, highlighting the lack of corroborative evidence and the delayed reporting of the incident. The defense effectively challenged the prosecution’s case by pointing out the witness’s unnatural behavior and the lack of lighting at the scene, which cast doubt on the witness’s ability to accurately perceive the events.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the main issue that the court dealt with can be summarized as:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the same code, based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, is sustainable.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was the reliability of the testimony of the sole eye witness.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Anil Phukhan vs. State of Assam [1993] 3 SCC 282* and State of A.P. vs. Patnam Anandam [2005] 9 SCC 237* to reiterate that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if their testimony is reliable. However, in this case, the Court found the eyewitness testimony to be unreliable.
• The Court considered Ramji Surya Padvi and Another vs. State of Maharashtra [1983] 3 SCC 629*, Chuhar Singh vs. State of Haryana [1976] 1 SCC 879*, Budha Satya Venkata S. Rao and Others vs. State of A.P. 1994 Supp(3) SCC 639*, and Niranjan Panja vs. State of West Bengal [2010] 6 SCC 525* and Nagraj vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu [2015] 4 SCC 739* to emphasize that the quality of evidence is more important than the number of witnesses. The Court found that the evidence in this case did not meet the required standard of quality.
• The Court referred to Mahamadkhan Nathekhan vs. State of Gujarat [2014] 14 SCC 589* to highlight that motive plays an important part in cases based on circumstantial evidence. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a convincing motive.
• The Court cited Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar [2014] 3 SCC 401* to state that when ocular evidence is in conformity with the medical evidence, conviction based thereon is legal and valid. However, in this case, the court found the ocular evidence to be unreliable.
• The Court referred to Lokeman Shah and another vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2001 SC 1760* and Vijayee Singh and others vs. State of U.P. [1990] 3 SCC 190* to explain the meaning of “proved”, “disproved”, and “not proved” as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing that the standard of proof is that of a prudent man.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the sole eyewitness testimony. The court noted several critical points:

• Inconsistent Testimony: The eyewitness’s account was fraught with inconsistencies and improbabilities, making it difficult to believe.
• Unnatural Conduct: The eyewitness’s behavior during and after the incident was deemed unnatural, raising serious doubts about his credibility.
• Delayed Reporting: The significant delay in reporting the incident to the police and others was not adequately explained.
• Lack of Corroboration: The lack of any other tangible evidence to support the eyewitness’s version further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Doubtful Motive: The alleged motive of an illicit relationship was not convincingly proven, failing to provide a strong reason for the murder.

The Court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis and legal principles. The factual analysis focused on the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the eyewitness’s testimony, while the legal principles emphasized the need for reliable evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the prosecution’s argument that the medical evidence corroborated PW1’s version of the events. However, the Court did not find this sufficient to overcome the inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in the eyewitness account. The Court also considered the argument that the delay in reporting the incident was due to threats from the appellant, but this was not found to be a sufficient explanation for the witness’s silence during the incident itself.

The final decision was that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused were entitled to an acquittal. The court stated:

“On a totality of the consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the evidence of PW1, as a witness of incident of murder, as projected by him is wholly unacceptable being fraught with improbabilities, doubts and oddities inconceivable with normal human conduct or behaviour and, thus cannot be acted upon as the basis of conviction.”

“The testimonies of PW3, PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW11, even if taken on their face value, fall short of the requirement of proof of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.”

“The appellant and the co-accused are thus entitled to the benefit of doubt in the singular facts and circumstances of the case.”

There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness if that testimony is unreliable.
• Inconsistencies, improbabilities, and unnatural conduct of an eyewitness can render their testimony unreliable.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• Delayed reporting of an incident without sufficient explanation can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Medical evidence alone cannot be the basis of conviction if the ocular evidence is not reliable.

Directions

The Supreme Court ordered the appellant to be set at liberty if not required in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a single eyewitness must be reliable and free from inconsistencies, improbabilities, and unnatural conduct to form the basis of a conviction. This case reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the number of witnesses, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather it reinforces the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera, emphasizing that a conviction cannot rest on unreliable eyewitness testimony alone. The Court highlighted the importance of credible evidence and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair trials and protecting individual liberties.