Supreme Court Acquits All Accused in 1985 Abduction and Murder Case: Vijay Singh vs. State of Bihar (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 735
Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a High Court reverse a Trial Court’s acquittal in a criminal case, especially when the evidence is primarily circumstantial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the alleged abduction and murder of a woman in 1985. The Court examined whether the High Court correctly overturned the Trial Court’s decision to acquit some of the accused, focusing on the reliability of witness testimonies and the strength of circumstantial evidence. The bench, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered the judgment, with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Neelam, who was found dead on 30 August 1985, in Simaltalla, Bihar. The prosecution’s case was that Neelam was abducted from her house on the night of 30 August 1985, at around 10:00 PM. Her brother-in-law, Ramanand Singh (PW18), reported that seven individuals had abducted her. These individuals were Krishna Nandan Singh (A-1), Ram Nandan Singh (A-2), Raj Nandan Singh (A-3), Shyam Nandan Singh (A-4), Bhagwan Singh (A-5), Vijay Singh (A-6), and Tanik Singh (A-7).

The prosecution alleged that the motive behind the abduction was a property dispute. Neelam was residing in her father’s house, which was also the subject of a legal battle between her family and the accused. The accused had obtained letters of administration and probate of the Will left by Neelam’s father, which was challenged by Neelam and her family in the Patna High Court. The High Court had issued an injunction against the accused from alienating any part of the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted accused persons A-1 to A-5 under Sections 302/34 (murder with common intention) and 364/34 (abduction with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting A-6 and A-7 of all charges. The Trial Court found that no motive was attributable to A-6 and A-7 and that their involvement in the crime was not established.

The Patna High Court, on appeal, upheld the conviction of A-1 to A-5 and reversed the acquittal of A-6 and A-7, convicting them under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the IPC. The High Court relied on the testimonies of PW2, PW4, and PW18, and circumstantial evidence. The High Court excluded the testimony of PW5 due to doubts about his presence at the scene of the crime.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following key sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: Punishment for murder.
• Section 364: Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 34 of the IPC states:
“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

Submissions on behalf of A-6 and A-7:

• There was no motive for A-6 and A-7 to commit the crime; the property dispute was between the other accused and the deceased.
• The High Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence without finding any infirmity in the Trial Court’s view.
• The testimonies of PW2 and PW4 were unreliable, and their presence at the spot was doubtful.
• The time of the incident was questionable, as per the post-mortem report, which indicated that the death occurred earlier than the time stated by the prosecution.
• The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually residing in the house from where she was allegedly abducted.

Submissions on behalf of the State:

• Non-examination of some independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as witnesses may be afraid to come forward.
• The High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and found the accused guilty.
• The testimonies of PW2, PW4, and PW18 were consistent and reliable.
• There was sufficient evidence to establish the motive for the crime.

Table of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the finding of guilt of the appellants arrived at by the High Court is sustainable in light of the evidence on record?
2. Whether the approach of the High Court was in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal into conviction in a criminal appeal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon 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 Court relied on State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [(2007) 3 SCC 755]*, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]*, Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana [(2009) 12 SCC 351]*, Kashiram v. State of M.P. [(2002) 1 SCC 71]*, Labh Singh v. State of Punjab [(1976) 1 SCC 181]*, and Suratlal v. State of M.P. [(1982) 1 SCC 488]* to emphasize that the High Court should not have re-appreciated evidence without finding infirmity in the Trial Court’s view.
• The Court distinguished Rai Saheb & ors. v. State of Haryana [(1994) Supp.1 SCC 74]*, stating that while independent witnesses may sometimes be afraid to come forward, the non-examination of natural witnesses in this case was fatal to the prosecution.
• The Court relied on Sanjeev v. State of H.P. [(2022) 6 SCC 294]* to highlight the principles for reversing acquittals, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Unreliable Witness Testimony: The Court found the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses (PW2, PW4, and PW18) to be unreliable, inconsistent, and doubtful. Their presence at the scene of the crime was questionable, and their conduct was deemed unnatural.
• Lack of Independent Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine natural and independent witnesses who were present at the scene, which raised doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
• Doubtful Residence of Deceased: The Court found that the prosecution did not conclusively prove that the deceased was residing at the house from where she was allegedly abducted.
• Inconsistent Time of Death: The post-mortem report indicated that the death occurred at a time different from what was stated by the prosecution.
• Improper Reversal of Acquittal: The High Court reversed the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 without finding the Trial Court’s view to be completely unsustainable, which was contrary to the established legal principles.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence (65%) than by legal principles alone (35%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and doubts. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of credible evidence. The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7, as the Trial Court’s view was not completely unsustainable.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must lead to an inescapable conclusion of guilt.

The Court stated, “The reasonable doubts, indicated above, are irreconcilable and strike at the foundation of the prosecution’s case.”

The Court also noted, “The High Court, in the impugned judgment, took a cursory view of the matter and reversed the acquittal of A -6 and A -7 without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or impossibility of the Trial Court’s view or non -appre ciation of evidence by the Trial Court.”

The Court further stated, “In the present case, the prosecution case is far from meeting that standard.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of reliable witness testimonies and the need for the prosecution to examine all natural witnesses.
• The Court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and consistent.
• The Court highlighted the higher threshold required for reversing an acquittal, stating that the High Court must find the Trial Court’s view to be completely unsustainable.
• The judgment underscores the principle that the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused.
• The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of a thorough and fair investigation in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all seven accused persons be released forthwith, if they were in custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court cannot reverse the acquittal unless the view taken by the Trial Court is completely unsustainable and not a probable view. This judgment reinforces the principle that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal and that the High Court must have compelling reasons to overturn it. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment reinforces the legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused persons in the 1985 abduction and murder case, setting aside the convictions by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with doubts, inconsistencies, and unreliable evidence, and that the High Court had improperly reversed the acquittal of some of the accused. The decision underscores the importance of a fair trial and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.