Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Evidence: Ravi Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 552
Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J. and Manoj Misra, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and testimonies of witnesses whose credibility is questionable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence. This case highlights the importance of rigorous scrutiny of evidence in criminal trials. The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On November 1, 2001, Man Singh (PW-1), discovered his son, Chhotu @ Surjeet’s body in a forest near Government Inter College. He filed a First Information Report (FIR) at P.S. Lalkuan, Haldwani, suspecting his son’s friends, Govind and Ravi Bangali (later identified as Ravi Mandal). Man Singh stated that on October 31, 2001, at around 9:00 PM, his son was with Govind and Ravi. He suspected they had killed his son and hid his body.

Later, on November 10, 2001, Man Singh submitted a written statement to the police, stating that Babloo (PW-7) had misled him. He clarified that it was not Govind, but Shabbir, along with Ravi and Mazhar Khan, who were with his son on the night of the incident.

During the investigation, the police arrested Ravi Mandal and Shabbir. A 12 bore country-made pistol with a live cartridge was recovered from Shabbir, and a knife from Ravi Mandal, leading to separate cases under the Arms Act.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Ravi Mandal and Shabbir, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of the IPC. Additionally, Shabbir was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Ravi Mandal received a similar sentence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the accused. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder, stating, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with 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.”
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of offense, stating, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished…”
• Section 25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for possessing illegal arms.
• Section 4/25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for possessing illegal arms.

The case also involves the application of principles related to circumstantial evidence and the credibility of witnesses in criminal trials.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the appellant Ravi Mandal:

• The prosecution’s claim that the deceased was last seen with the accused is not supported by reliable evidence. Neither the father (PW-1) nor the mother (PW-3) of the deceased saw him with the accused on the night of the incident.
• Babloo (PW-7) did not mention seeing the accused with the deceased.
• Chandan Singh (PW-2) is not a listed witness, and his delayed disclosure lacks credibility. His presence at the spot is also questionable.
• Mahendra Khurana (PW-5) is a chance witness, and his explanation for being at the location is not convincing.
• Hanuman Prasad (PW-6) was declared hostile.
• The recovery of weapons from the accused is doubtful because no public witness was present, and the site plan was prepared much later.
• There are inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the FIR being lodged before or after the body was taken to the police station.
• The initial suspicion was against Govind, and Shabbir’s name was introduced later.
• The deceased had criminal antecedents, suggesting other potential enemies.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant Shabbir:

• Shabbir’s name was not in the initial FIR.
• The motive was initially attributed to Govind.
• Shabbir’s implication is based on suspicion.
• The recovery of the pistol is questionable, with no public witness.
• The ballistic report was not put to the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

Submissions on behalf of the State:

• PW-7 confirmed that the deceased had asked for food.
• PW-1 and PW-3 corroborated that food was sent for three people, including the deceased.
• PW-2 and PW-5 saw the deceased with the accused near the location where the body was found.
• The defense did not prove any enmity between PW-2, PW-5, and the accused.
• The witnesses’ ability to identify the accused and the presence of moonlight were not challenged.
• The ballistic report connects the recovered pistol to the empty cartridge found at the scene.
• The autopsy report confirms that the death was caused by a gunshot.

[TABLE] of Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused near the spot at the relevant time.
2. Whether the recovery of the country-made pistol and knife from the accused at the time of their arrest inspires confidence.
3. Whether the ballistic report can be relied upon when it was not put to the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

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:

Cases:

• Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that a witness’s delayed disclosure of incriminating circumstances, without a valid reason, diminishes the value of their testimony.
• Rajesh Yadav & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that the evidence of a chance witness requires careful scrutiny, and their presence at the scene must be adequately explained.
• Jarnail Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited to emphasize that the evidence of a chance witness requires careful scrutiny, and their presence at the scene must be adequately explained.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, Supreme Court of India:* The Court applied the principle that delayed disclosure by a witness without a valid reason reduces the value of their testimony.
• Rajesh Yadav & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200, Supreme Court of India:* The Court applied the principle that the evidence of a chance witness requires careful scrutiny and adequate explanation of their presence at the scene.
• Jarnail Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, Supreme Court of India:* The Court applied the principle that the evidence of a chance witness requires careful scrutiny and adequate explanation of their presence at the scene.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court found that the testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent, delayed, and lacked credibility. The Court also noted the absence of public witnesses during the alleged recovery of weapons and the failure to present the ballistic report to the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court emphasized the importance of strict scrutiny of evidence, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence, and highlighted the need for a credible and trustworthy prosecution story before convicting an accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was built on “bits and pieces of evidence” collected to solve a blind murder. The Court found that the lower courts failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court quoted, “In light of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon.”

The Court also stated, “On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles as discussed above, we find the evidence not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused appellants.”

Additionally, the Court noted, “In our view, the courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence by applying the correct legal principles. In such circumstances, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• The importance of credible witness testimony in criminal trials.
• The need for a strong chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The significance of proper procedure in collecting and presenting evidence.
• The principle that the benefit of the doubt must always be given to the accused.
• The necessity for courts to rigorously scrutinize evidence before convicting an individual.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, who were on bail, need not surrender. Their bail bonds were discharged. If they were not on bail, they were to be released immediately unless wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on unreliable witness testimony, questionable weapon recovery, and inadmissible ballistic reports. The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that circumstantial evidence must be strong and consistent to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This case serves as a reminder to lower courts to thoroughly scrutinize evidence and adhere to established legal principles before convicting an accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand highlights the critical importance of credible evidence in criminal trials. The Court acquitted the accused due to the unreliability of witness testimonies, questionable weapon recovery, and procedural lapses. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that courts must rigorously scrutinize evidence before convicting an individual.