Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: Sita Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 329

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a conviction for murder stand when the eyewitness accounts are contradictory and the prosecution fails to examine available independent witnesses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the reliability of eyewitness testimony was under scrutiny. The Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the need for consistent and credible evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Pankaj Mithal concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on August 17, 1984. According to the prosecution, Uday Raj Maurya (PW-1), Ram Aadhar (PW-2), and Karam Hussain (the deceased) were discussing irrigation near PW-1 and PW-2’s house. There was existing animosity between these individuals and the accused due to previous legal disputes. PW-2 had been a witness in a case against the family of accused no. 1, and a decree had been passed in favor of PW-1 and PW-2 against accused no. 7. Additionally, PW-2 had filed a case against accused nos. 3 and 4.

While they were talking, the accused arrived with bricks and bamboo sticks. The appellant, Sita Ram, was carrying a spade. Accused nos. 4 and 6 allegedly shouted that PW-1, PW-2, and the deceased should be killed. The victims attempted to flee but were chased and surrounded. The appellant struck the deceased on the head with the blunt edge of the spade and also attacked PW-2. The assault continued with bamboo sticks, resulting in the death of Karam Hussain. The prosecution presented eight witnesses, including PW-1 and PW-2 as eyewitnesses. The Sessions Court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted some of them, while confirming the appellant’s conviction.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in their cross-examination that they did not see which accused assaulted the deceased.
• They also pointed out that three eyewitnesses present at the scene were not examined by the prosecution.
• Based on these points, the appellant’s counsel contended that the conviction could not be sustained.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh’s counsel argued that PW-1 and PW-2 clearly stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased on the head with the blunt edge of the spade.
• They submitted that the medical evidence supported the eyewitnesses’ version regarding the appellant’s assault on the deceased.
• The respondent’s counsel maintained that both the Sessions Court and the High Court had correctly believed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, and there was no perversity in their findings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant is sustainable based on the evidence on record, considering the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies and the non-examination of independent witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Examination of witnesses by police.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* regarding punishment for murder, but ultimately acquitted the appellant.
• The Court considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* regarding acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, but found insufficient evidence to apply it to the appellant.
• The Court considered Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* regarding punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, but this was not the primary charge against the appellant.
• The Court considered Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* regarding every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object, but did not find it applicable to the appellant.
• The Court noted that statements of independent witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973*, but these witnesses were not examined, which the court found to be a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimony: The Court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 contradicted their initial statements during cross-examination, admitting they did not see which accused assaulted the deceased.
• Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine three independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This failure was deemed critical, especially since one of these witnesses was present in court but not examined.
• Prior Enmity: The Court acknowledged the prior enmity between the eyewitnesses and the accused, which further cast doubt on the reliability of their testimonies.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and the legal principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The factual inconsistencies, such as the eyewitnesses admitting they did not see the assault, weighed more heavily (60%) than the legal considerations (40%) related to the non-examination of witnesses and the principle of reasonable doubt.

The Court considered the possibility that the eyewitnesses may have been mistaken or untruthful due to the chaotic nature of the incident and their prior enmity with the accused. The Court also considered the prosecution’s failure to examine the independent witnesses as a significant flaw. The Court rejected the argument that the medical evidence was sufficient to overcome the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated, “Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Court noted that the High Court had disbelieved the eyewitnesses’ version about the injuries they received, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The court stated, “We may note here that the High Court has disbelieved their versions to the extent to which they deposed about the injuries received by them in the incident at the hands of the accused. In fact, there is a specific finding that the version of PW­1 and PW­2 about the assault on them does not inspire confidence.”

The Court also highlighted the importance of examining all material witnesses, stating, “In the present case, version of PW­1 and PW­2 does not inspire confidence. That is how the failure of the prosecution to examine three independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant.”

Key Takeaways

• Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony: Eyewitness testimonies must be consistent and credible. Inconsistencies and contradictions can render them unreliable.
• Duty to Examine Witnesses: The prosecution has a duty to examine all material witnesses, especially independent ones. Failure to do so can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is weak or unreliable, the accused should be acquitted.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment reinforces the principle that convictions cannot be sustained based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies and that the prosecution must present a complete and credible case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when the eyewitness testimonies are inconsistent and unreliable, and when the prosecution fails to examine available independent eyewitnesses. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the burden of proof on the prosecution and the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Sita Ram, in a murder case, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the eyewitness testimonies to be inconsistent and unreliable, and it criticized the prosecution for not examining independent witnesses. This judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the duty of the prosecution to present a complete case in criminal trials.