Supreme Court acquits three accused in a murder case due to lack of evidence: Peer Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: S.A. Bobde, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Can a person be convicted of murder based on inconsistent witness testimony? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where three individuals were accused of murder. The court scrutinized the evidence presented and ultimately acquitted the accused due to significant discrepancies in the witness statements. This case underscores the importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

Case Background

On the night of September 13/14, 1992, Babusingh was murdered near Village Kalma in the Dewas District of Madhya Pradesh. Babusingh was traveling on a motorcycle with two pillion riders, Gattu (PW-8) and Vasu (not examined), when they were attacked by a group of individuals armed with weapons. The assailants attacked Babusingh, who died as a result of the injuries sustained. The prosecution initially charged 15 individuals with the murder, but the trial court convicted only seven. The convicted individuals were Gajrajsingh, Harisingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, Peer Singh, Gulabsingh, Shobharam, and Thakursingh. They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Harisingh and Shobharam died during the pendency of the appeals, and Gulabsingh and Thakursingh did not appeal their convictions. The Supreme Court was left with the appeals of Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh, and Peer Singh.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The following legal provisions are relevant to this case:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the concept of ‘common object’ in unlawful assembly. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the offense of rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section pertains to the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation.

Arguments

The main argument raised by the appellants (Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Peer Singh) was that there was no evidence to prove their presence at the scene of the crime. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of witnesses, particularly Motisingh (PW-1), the father of the deceased, and Mansingh (PW-5), an alleged eyewitness.

• Prosecution’s Argument:
  • The prosecution argued that the accused were part of the group that attacked and murdered Babusingh.
  • They relied on the testimony of Mansingh (PW-5), who claimed to have seen the accused at the scene of the crime.
  • They also argued that the “Dehati Nalishi” (first information) and the subsequent FIR implicated the accused.
• Appellants’ Argument:
  • The appellants contended that their names were not mentioned in the initial “Dehati Nalishi” recorded by Motisingh (PW-1).
  • They pointed out that Mansingh’s (PW-5) statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not include their names.
  • They argued that there were significant discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses, casting doubt on their presence at the scene.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the three appellants, namely Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Peer Singh, were present at the spot of the incident and participated in the murder of Babusingh?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section was considered for the definition of murder and its punishment.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section was considered for the concept of ‘common object’ in unlawful assembly.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section was considered for the offense of rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section was considered for the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the three appellants was primarily influenced by the lack of consistent and reliable evidence. The court emphasized the following points:

• Discrepancies in Witness Statements: The most crucial factor was the inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses. The initial “Dehati Nalishi,” which is akin to the First Information Report, did not mention the names of the three appellants. Similarly, the statement of Mansingh (PW-5) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also omitted their names. This raised a significant doubt about their presence at the scene of the crime.
• Importance of Initial Information: The court highlighted the importance of the initial information given to the police, which in this case was the “Dehati Nalishi.” The fact that the names of the appellants were missing in this initial report was a major factor in the court’s decision.
• Benefit of Doubt: The court reiterated the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when there is a lack of clear and consistent evidence.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual discrepancies in the evidence presented. The court did not delve deeply into complex legal interpretations but focused on the lack of credible evidence linking the appellants to the crime.

The court considered that there was an alternative interpretation that the appellants were present, but rejected it due to the lack of evidence. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for the absence of the appellants’ names in the initial police records and the statement of Mansingh (PW-5).

The final decision was that the three appellants, Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Peer Singh, were acquitted. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove their presence at the scene of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The following reasons were given for the decision:

• The names of the three appellants were not mentioned in the initial “Dehati Nalishi”.
• Mansingh’s (PW-5) statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not include their names.
• There were significant discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses.

“It would be pertinent to mention that in this “Dehati Nalishi” none of the three appellants have been named.”

“When the statement was recorded in court he stated that when Babusingh was being attacked he (Babusingh) told the pillion riders to go to his house and inform that persons of Sobhagsingh are beating him. This fact is totally different from what is recorded in the “Dehati Nalishi” wherein it is stated that Babusingh took the names of Sobhagsingh and Thakursingh.”

“Therefore, a grave doubt is raised with regard to the presence of these three accused at the place of incidence. The benefit of doubt obviously has to go to the accused-appellants.”

Key Takeaways

• The importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony in criminal cases.
• The significance of the initial information recorded by the police (Dehati Nalishi) in investigations.
• The principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when there is a lack of clear evidence.
• This case highlights that inconsistencies in witness statements can lead to acquittal, even in serious offenses like murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh, and Gajrajsingh, be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly the absence of the accused’s names in the initial police records and statements, create a reasonable doubt that must be resolved in favor of the accused. This case also underscores the importance of the initial information given to the police and the need for thorough and consistent investigations.

There is no change in the previous position of law. The Supreme Court has reiterated the existing principles of criminal law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted Gajrajsingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Peer Singh in a murder case, citing a lack of consistent evidence. The court emphasized discrepancies in the witness statements, particularly the absence of the appellants’ names in the initial police records and the statement of Mansingh (PW-5). This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies in the evidence will benefit the accused.