Supreme Court acquits Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad in murder case, upholding Bhanwar Lal’s acquittal (29 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1779

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M. R. Shah, J.

Can a court convict some accused based on the testimony of eyewitnesses while acquitting another accused based on doubts about the same testimony? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a murder case. The court examined whether the High Court was right in confirming the conviction of some accused while acquitting another, all based on the same set of eyewitness accounts. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the night of May 22, 2005, in Kadiayavan village, a group of 14 individuals allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Hariram. Hariram succumbed to his injuries on the intervening night of May 22 and 23, 2005. The prosecution claimed that the accused were responsible for the death of Hariram and brought charges against them.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted five of the fourteen accused, namely Jodhraj, Bhanwar Lal, Dwarka Lal, Jagdish Prasad, and Pooran Mal, under Sections 148, 302/149, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court. The State also appealed against the acquittal of some of the accused. The High Court acquitted Bhanwar Lal, doubting the credibility of eyewitnesses PW2 and PW3. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad based on the same eyewitness accounts. Aggrieved, Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad appealed to the Supreme Court, and the State appealed against the acquittal of Bhanwar Lal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 149 of the IPC, which addresses offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:

“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.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad):

• The High Court erred in upholding their conviction solely based on the testimonies of PW2 and PW3.
• The statements of PW2 and PW3 were recorded 18 days after the incident, raising doubts about their reliability.
• The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 were exaggerated and aimed at implicating more individuals.
• The same grounds on which Bhanwar Lal was acquitted should apply to the appellants as well, as the evidence against all of them was similar.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The High Court erred in acquitting Bhanwar Lal.
• Injury No. 3, which proved fatal, was attributed to Jagdish Prasad.
• PW2, an eyewitness, specifically implicated Jagdish Prasad in causing the fatal injury.
• Jodhraj also participated in the incident and was responsible for Injury No. 2.
• The Trial Court and the High Court rightly convicted Jagdish Prasad and Jodhraj based on reliable evidence.

Arguments on behalf of the Acquitted Accused (Bhanwar Lal):

• The High Court provided cogent reasons for acquitting Bhanwar Lal.
• The acquittal of Bhanwar Lal should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting one accused (Bhanwar Lal) based on doubts about the reliability of eyewitness testimonies while simultaneously convicting other accused (Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad) based on the same testimonies.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the assessment of the factual evidence and the principle of parity in the treatment of accused persons based on the same evidence.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

No authorities were cited in the judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of consistency and fairness in the application of evidence. The Court noted that the High Court had doubted the credibility of the eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW3) to acquit one accused, Bhanwar Lal. However, it relied on the same testimonies to convict Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad. The Supreme Court found this inconsistent. The Court emphasized that when the credibility of a witness is doubted for one accused, the same doubt should extend to other accused unless there is additional evidence to implicate them. The Court also considered the fact that the statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded 18 days after the incident, which further raised doubts about their reliability.

The Supreme Court stated, “if the deposition of PW2 and PW3 are not reliable qua one of the accused on the grounds stated hereinabove and one of the accused came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, the same benefit ought to have been given to the other accused also, unless there is some further material/evidence against the other accused.”

The Court also observed, “except relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3, there is no other evidence implicating the appellants­Accused convicts.”

The Court further noted, “Cogent reasons have been given by the High Court for not believing the deposition of PW2 and PW3.”

Key Takeaways

• If a court doubts the credibility of a witness for one accused, the same doubt should generally apply to other accused unless there is additional evidence.
• Consistency in the application of evidence is crucial for a fair trial.
• Delayed recording of statements can raise doubts about the reliability of eyewitness testimonies.
• The benefit of doubt should be extended to all accused when the primary evidence is deemed unreliable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the testimony of a witness is deemed unreliable for one accused, the same should be considered unreliable for other accused, unless there is additional evidence. This case reinforces the principle of parity in the application of evidence and highlights the importance of consistency in judicial decisions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case clarifies the application of the principle of parity in the context of eyewitness testimony.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad, setting aside their convictions and acquitting them. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit Bhanwar Lal. The judgment emphasizes the need for consistency in the application of evidence and the importance of extending the benefit of doubt to all accused when the primary evidence is unreliable.