Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to unreliable sole witness testimony: Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 699
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a conviction for murder stand when it rests solely on the testimony of a single witness whose account is riddled with inconsistencies and doubts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the reliability of the sole eyewitness was under scrutiny. The Court ultimately overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for trustworthy and cogent evidence in criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On August 2, 1998, a man named Dharmendra was found dead in Meghdoot Garden, Indore, with multiple stab and cut wounds. Prem Narain (PW-5), the father of the deceased, reported that he had seen the accused, Babbu @ Nandkishore, Vijay, and Mahesh, stabbing his son. The prosecution’s case was built on the testimony of Prem Narain, who claimed to have witnessed the crime while searching for his son in the garden. The accused were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder with common intention. The prosecution alleged that there was a prior enmity between the accused and the deceased’s family, as the deceased’s elder brother had been beaten by the accused three months prior to the incident.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, affirming the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Additionally, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is relevant, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, stating, “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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the conviction was solely based on the testimony of Prem Narain (PW-5), the father of the deceased, whose testimony was full of contradictions and therefore unreliable.
• They contended that the previous enmity between the families could have led to false implication.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which found PW-5’s testimony reliable, should not be interfered with.
• They submitted that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness if it is found to be reliable.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that, they questioned the reliability of the sole witness, Prem Narain (PW-5), by highlighting the contradictions in his testimony and the possibility of false implication due to prior enmity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants based solely on the testimony of Prem Narain (PW-5) is sustainable in law, considering the contradictions and doubts in his testimony and the admitted previous enmity between the parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The 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.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the relevant provisions under which the accused were charged but did not find the evidence to be sufficient to convict them under the said provisions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the lack of credibility in the sole witness’s testimony. The Court noted that the witness’s account was full of contradictions, and the possibility of false implication due to prior enmity could not be ruled out. The Court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on a single witness, the testimony must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent, which was not the case here. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the doubts surrounding the witness’s presence at the scene and his ability to identify the assailants in the dark.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the possibility that Prem Narain (PW-5) might not have actually witnessed the incident, given the darkness and the circumstances. The Court also questioned whether it was a mere coincidence that Prem Narain (PW-5) went to the garden at the same time the incident occurred. The court also considered the fact that the other eye witnesses were disbelieved by the Trial Court and the High Court.

The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence of Prem Narain (PW-5) was not of such a quality that would inspire confidence in the Court. The court stated, “We do not find that the evidence of Prem Narain (PW -5) is of such a quality that would inspire confidence in the Court.” The Court also noted, “From the tenor of the evidence, it is doubtful, as to whether he has really witnessed the alleged incident or not.” The Court also observed, “Can it be a mere coincidence that Prem Narain (PW -5) goes to the Meghdoot Garden to search for his younger son Dharmender and at the same time, he finds the appellants assailing the deceased and thereafter run away?”

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction cannot be solely based on the testimony of a single witness if that testimony is not wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent.
• Previous enmity between parties can be a double-edged sword, providing motive but also raising the possibility of false implication.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize the testimony of sole witnesses, especially when there are inconsistencies and doubts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be acquitted of all charges and that their bail bonds be discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, such testimony must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. This judgment reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and that in cases where the sole witness’s testimony is doubtful, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reaffirms it.

Conclusion

In the case of Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, overturning the conviction by the Trial Court and the High Court. The decision was based on the finding that the sole eyewitness’s testimony was not reliable due to material contradictions and doubts. The Court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on a single witness, the testimony must be wholly trustworthy and cogent. This case highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused when the evidence is not convincing.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Evidence Law

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can a person be convicted of a crime based on the testimony of only one witness?
A: Yes, a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, but that testimony must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. The court must be convinced of the witness’s credibility.

Q: What happens if there are contradictions in the testimony of a witness?
A: If there are significant contradictions in the testimony of a witness, it can cast doubt on their credibility, and the court may not rely on such testimony to convict an accused.

Q: What does “previous enmity” mean in a legal context?
A: Previous enmity refers to a prior conflict or bad relationship between parties. It can provide a motive for a crime but also raises the possibility of false implication, making the court more cautious about the evidence presented.

Q: What is the significance of the Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?
A: This case emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused when the evidence is not convincing. It also highlights that a conviction cannot be solely based on a single witness’s testimony if it is not wholly trustworthy.

Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine.

Q: What is Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that 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.