Supreme Court Acquits All Accused in Murder Case Citing Inconsistent Witness Testimony: Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. vs. State of Assam (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 17th October 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 913
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice B.V. Nagarathna. The judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Can inconsistencies in witness testimonies lead to the acquittal of accused individuals in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, overturning the conviction of multiple individuals accused of murder. The Court emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases, particularly when the testimonies of key witnesses contradict each other.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on November 19, 1999, at around 7:00 a.m. when Md. Baju Mollik (PW-6) was ploughing his land. An altercation ensued between him and Md. Sahed Ali (accused No. 11). Subsequently, other accused individuals, armed with weapons such as fallas, jongs, daggers, and lathis, allegedly attacked Md. Baju Mollik. When Ekkabar Ali, Md. Samad Ali (PW-1), and Jonab Ali (PW-4) intervened, Ekkabar Ali was fatally stabbed, leading to his death. Md. Samad Ali (PW-1) and Jonab Ali (PW-4) also sustained injuries in the incident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was initially registered at the Barpeta Police Station. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Barpeta, and subsequently transferred to the Fast Track Court, Barpeta. The Fast Track Court convicted the accused, and the Gauhati High Court upheld this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 323, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 447, IPC: “Punishment for criminal trespass.—Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
• Section 324, IPC: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Except in the case provided by section 334, whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

These provisions of the IPC are part of the criminal law framework of India, which is derived from the Constitution of India. These sections deal with offences related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, and causing hurt.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• There was no evidence of an unlawful assembly, rioting, or murder. The case was fabricated by the Investigating Officer, Biseswar Singha (PW-10). The appellants were not present at the scene.

• The investigation by PW-10 was flawed. The prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, and the witnesses examined were related to each other and influenced by PW-10. There were contradictions in the FIR and witness depositions. The charge sheet lacked PW-10’s signature, and land documents were not verified.

• The dispute was about land, and the ingredients of Section 149 of the IPC were not met. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was not valid. There was no clear evidence as to who delivered the fatal blow.

• The courts failed to consider the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The prosecution proved the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, and PW-5), corroborated by medical evidence.

• Minor discrepancies in PW-6’s testimony did not undermine the consistent depositions of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5. The discrepancy regarding who stabbed the deceased was not critical. The evidence contained a ring of truth and should not be discarded based on minor discrepancies. The State relied on judgments such as Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 3 SCC 751, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, Prithu @ Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 588, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhaakki Lal (2019) 12 SCC 326.

• The plea of alibi was not sufficiently proven. The plea of alibi must be proved with certainty to exclude the possibility of the accused’s presence at the scene. The State relied on Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar (1981) 2 SCC 166, Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204, and State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (1984) 1 SCC 446.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants-accused by the Fast Track Court?
2. Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference or modification by this Court?
3. What order?

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 cited Saravanabhavan v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1273]* and Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 159]* to highlight the circumstances under which the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts, particularly when there is an improper reception or rejection of evidence or a misreading of vital evidence.
• The Court distinguished between normal and material discrepancies by relying on State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr. [(1981) 2 SCC 752]*.
• The Court relied on Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat [(2019) 6 SCC 535]* to justify its re-appreciation of the evidence, stating that the Supreme Court can interfere when the High Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence correctly.
• The Court noted the submissions of the State which relied on Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1972) 3 SCC 751]*, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217]*, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505]*, Prithu @ Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2009) 11 SCC 588]*, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhaakki Lal [(2019) 12 SCC 326]* which were all cases relating to the treatment of evidence when discrepancies are alleged. However, the Court distinguished the present case on facts and did not apply the principles laid down in these cases.
• The Court also noted the submissions of the State which relied on Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar [(1981) 2 SCC 166]*, Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 6 SCC 204]*, and State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446]* which were all cases relating to the plea of alibi. However, the Court did not apply the principles laid down in these cases as the prosecution’s case was found to be unreliable.
• The Court cited Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa [(2002) 8 SCC 381]*, Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 12 SCC 701]* and Ganapathi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2018) 5 SCC 549]* to emphasize the need for careful scrutiny of testimonies of related or interested witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit all the accused was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Inconsistent Witness Testimonies: The court noted significant contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6) regarding who inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased. These inconsistencies made the prosecution’s case unreliable.
• Lack of Independent Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses, relying solely on the testimonies of witnesses related to the deceased. The court emphasized that while related witnesses’ testimonies are not automatically inadmissible, they must be scrutinized with greater care, which was not done in this case.
• Flawed Investigation: The court pointed out that the Investigating Officer (PW-10) did not verify crucial land documents and failed to collect blood stains from the scene of the crime, indicating a flawed investigation.
• Material Discrepancies: The court distinguished between minor and material discrepancies, holding that the inconsistencies in the witness testimonies were material and fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Misreading of Evidence: The court held that both the High Court and the Fast Track Court had misread the evidence, overlooking the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

The court rejected the argument that minor discrepancies could be ignored, emphasizing that the contradictions were material and undermined the prosecution’s case. The court also highlighted that the prosecution relied solely on related witnesses and did not present any independent witnesses, which further weakened its case.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court and the Trial Court had failed to consider the vital discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Court also pointed out that the injuries caused to the witnesses were simple in nature and caused by a blunt weapon, which did not align with the charges against the accused.

The Supreme Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, concluded that the High Court was not justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution’s case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so.”

“In the present case, owing to the substantial and material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses , the evidence of the prosecution is considered wholly unreliable.”

“We are conscious that the Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below… Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, and the decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Consistent Testimony: In criminal cases, especially those involving serious charges like murder, the consistency and reliability of witness testimonies are paramount. Material contradictions can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• Significance of Independent Witnesses: The absence of independent witnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case, especially when the prosecution relies solely on the testimonies of related witnesses.
• Thorough Investigation: A thorough and unbiased investigation is crucial for a fair trial. Flaws in the investigation, such as the failure to verify crucial documents or collect evidence, can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case.
• Scrutiny of Evidence: Courts must meticulously scrutinize the evidence presented by the prosecution, especially when there are inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses.
• Reappreciation of Evidence: The Supreme Court can re-appreciate evidence when there is a misreading or overlooking of material discrepancies by the lower courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appeals filed by the accused be allowed and the judgments of the High Court and the Fast Track Court be quashed and set aside. The accused were acquitted of all charges.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially in the absence of independent witnesses and a thorough investigation, can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant inconsistencies in the evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the strict application of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. vs. State of Assam highlights the critical importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases. The Court’s emphasis on the need for a thorough investigation and the meticulous scrutiny of witness testimonies underscores the principles of fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The acquittal of all the accused in this case serves as a reminder that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant inconsistencies in the evidence can be fatal to its case.

Category: Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 447, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The court found that the evidence was unreliable and did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: What are material discrepancies in witness testimonies?

A: Material discrepancies are significant inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses that undermine the credibility of their testimony. In this case, the inconsistencies were regarding who inflicted the fatal blow, which was a critical aspect of the case.

Q: Why did the court emphasize the lack of independent witnesses?

A: The court emphasized the lack of independent witnesses because the prosecution relied solely on the testimonies of witnesses related to the deceased. This raised concerns about potential bias and the reliability of the evidence.

Q: What does it mean for a plea of alibi to be proven with certainty?

A: A plea of alibi must be proven with certainty to completely exclude the possibility of the accused being present at the scene of the crime. In this case, the court did not need to consider the alibi defense due to the unreliability of the prosecution’s case.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for future cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases. It highlights the need for thorough investigations and the meticulous scrutiny of witness testimonies, especially when there are material contradictions. It also emphasizes that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.