LEGAL ISSUE: Whether inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence warrant altering a conviction for murder in a case of group assault.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Group Assault, Murder, and Voluntarily Causing Hurt.
Case Name: Viram @ Virma Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment Date: 23 November 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 747
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B. V. Nagarathna, J.
Can discrepancies between eyewitness accounts and medical reports undermine a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal group assault. The court examined whether inconsistencies between the oral testimony of witnesses and medical evidence were significant enough to overturn a conviction for murder. The judgment highlights the importance of corroborating evidence in criminal cases and the impact of discrepancies on the outcome of a trial. The bench comprised of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B. V. Nagarathna, with the opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Case Background
On August 19, 1995, an altercation occurred between Babulal Lodha, Shankarlal, and Shriram’s group. Later that day, after sunset, a group of individuals, including Shriram, Viram, and others, armed with weapons like farsa, lathi, ballam, spear, and sword, attacked Shankarlal and Babulal Lodha. The informant, Solal, along with other witnesses, rushed to the scene to rescue the victims and were also assaulted. Babulal son of Prabhulal Lodha succumbed to his injuries. The First Information Report (FIR) No. 48 of 1995 was registered at Police Station Kumbhraj, Guna, Madhya Pradesh, based on the oral report given by Solal son of Girdhari (PW-10). The appellants were charged under Sections 147, 302/149, 324/149, 329/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). There were a total of 21 accused apart from two juveniles.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 19, 1995 (Daytime) | Altercation between Babulal Lodha, Shankarlal, and Shriram’s group. |
| August 19, 1995 (After Sunset) | Attack on Shankarlal and Babulal Lodha by a group including Shriram and Viram. |
| August 19, 1995 | Solal (PW-10) and others rush to rescue and are also assaulted. |
| August 20, 1995 (03:15 AM) | Babulal Lodha brought to the hospital. |
| August 20, 1995 | Babulal Lodha succumbs to injuries. |
| 23 November 2021 | Supreme Court delivers judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court found the accused guilty under Sections 147, 302/149 for the murder of Babulal, and under Sections 325/149, 324/149, and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing hurt to the injured witnesses. The accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, along with other sentences for the hurt offenses. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the Appellants. The High Court held that the discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses in Court were minor in nature.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
- 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 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 324, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 325, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
- Section 326, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
These sections define the offenses related to rioting, murder, and causing different degrees of hurt, and also address the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- The appellants argued that the testimonies of the witnesses were not supported by medical evidence regarding the nature, number, and type of injuries, and the weapons used. They relied on Amar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that the inconsistencies between eyewitness statements and medical evidence are crucial and warrant acquittal.
- The appellants contended that only Shankarlal (PW-11) witnessed the assault on the deceased, while other injured witnesses arrived later. Therefore, their evidence should not be used to convict them under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC.
- It was also argued that the ingredients of Section 149 of the IPC were not met, and thus the appellants should not have been convicted with the aid of this section.
- The appellants argued that the conviction under Section 302/149 was excessive and requested an alternate conviction under Section 326/149.
Arguments by the Respondent (State):
- The prosecution argued that there was sufficient evidence to uphold the judgments of the lower courts.
- Shankarlal (PW-11) was an eyewitness to the murder, and his statement was corroborated by other injured eyewitnesses.
- The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were minor and should not benefit the appellants.
- Despite some inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence, the overwhelming oral evidence justified the conviction.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence | ✓ Testimonies not supported by medical evidence ✓ Discrepancies in nature, number, and type of injuries ✓ Reliance on Amar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab to highlight the importance of congruence between oral and medical evidence. |
✓ Minor inconsistencies should not benefit the appellants ✓ Overwhelming oral evidence justifies conviction despite some inconsistencies |
| Eyewitness account | ✓ Only Shankarlal (PW-11) witnessed the assault on the deceased ✓ Other injured witnesses arrived later, so their evidence is not reliable |
✓ Shankarlal (PW-11) is a credible eyewitness ✓ Other injured witnesses corroborated Shankarlal’s statement |
| Applicability of Section 149 IPC | ✓ Ingredients of Section 149 IPC not met ✓ Conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC is not justified |
✓ The attack was a collective act by the accused |
| Severity of Conviction | ✓ Conviction under Section 302/149 is harsh and excessive ✓ Alternate conviction under Section 326/149 is more appropriate |
✓ Sufficient evidence to uphold the judgments of the lower courts |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the inconsistencies between the oral testimony and medical evidence were not minor but were significant enough to discredit the entire prosecution case, drawing on previous judgments to support their position.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law or procedure or is based on error of record, misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence.
- Whether the inconsistencies between the oral evidence of the witnesses and the medical evidence are significant enough to warrant interference with the judgments of the Courts below.
- Whether the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302/149 of the IPC is justified.
Additionally, the court also considered the nature of the weapons used and their correlation with the injuries sustained by the deceased.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law or procedure or is based on error of record, misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence. | No error found | The Supreme Court found no error in the assessment of the High Court. |
| Whether the inconsistencies between the oral evidence of the witnesses and the medical evidence are significant enough to warrant interference with the judgments of the Courts below. | Yes, significant inconsistencies found | The court found a contradiction between the oral testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of the fatal injury. |
| Whether the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302/149 of the IPC is justified. | Not justified | The court found that the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon, while the accused were carrying sharp weapons. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Amar Singh v. State of Punjab [1987] 1 SCC 679 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize the importance of consistency between oral evidence and medical opinion. The Court in this case had held that if the medical report is inconsistent with the oral testimony, it can discredit the entire prosecution case.
- Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 4 SCC 497 (Supreme Court of India): This case was used to further support the argument that inconsistencies between eyewitness statements and medical evidence are vital and can lead to acquittal.
- Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1976] 4 SCC 158 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the principle that the Supreme Court does not normally re-appreciate evidence unless there is an error of law or procedure.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
- Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 324, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 325, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
- Section 326, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
| Authority | Type | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Amar Singh v. State of Punjab [1987] 1 SCC 679 | Case | Cited to emphasize the importance of consistency between oral and medical evidence; used to argue that inconsistencies can discredit the prosecution. |
| Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 4 SCC 497 | Case | Cited to support the argument that inconsistencies between eyewitness statements and medical evidence are vital and can lead to acquittal. |
| Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1976] 4 SCC 158 | Case | Cited to support the principle that the Supreme Court does not normally re-appreciate evidence unless there is an error of law or procedure. |
| Section 147, IPC | Statute | Defined the offense of rioting, for which the appellants were initially convicted. |
| Section 302, IPC | Statute | Defined the offense of murder, for which the appellants were initially convicted. |
| Section 149, IPC | Statute | Defined the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, which was a key point of contention. |
| Section 323, IPC | Statute | Defined the offense of voluntarily causing hurt, for which the appellants were convicted. |
| Section 324, IPC | Statute | Defined the offense of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, for which the appellants were convicted. |
| Section 325, IPC | Statute | Defined the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, for which the appellants were convicted. |
| Section 326, IPC | Statute | Defined the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, under which the appellants were ultimately convicted. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence | The Court acknowledged the inconsistencies, particularly regarding the nature of the fatal injury (blunt force) versus the weapons used (sharp objects). This was a key factor in altering the conviction. |
| Eyewitness account | The Court found Shankarlal (PW-11) to be a credible witness, but noted that the other injured witnesses arrived after the initial assault. The court relied on the corroborative evidence of the injured witnesses. |
| Applicability of Section 149 IPC | The Court did not express an opinion on the validity of Section 149 IPC, leaving it open for future consideration. The conviction under Section 302/149 was altered, but the conviction under other sections with the aid of Section 149 was upheld. |
| Severity of Conviction | The Court agreed that the conviction under Section 302/149 was not justified due to the inconsistencies between the oral and medical evidence. The conviction was altered to Section 326/149. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Amar Singh v. State of Punjab [1987] 1 SCC 679*: The Court relied on this case to highlight the significance of inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence, using it to justify altering the conviction under Section 302/149.
- Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 4 SCC 497*: This case reinforced the principle that inconsistencies between eyewitness statements and medical evidence are crucial, further supporting the alteration of the conviction.
- Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1976] 4 SCC 158*: While acknowledging this principle, the court distinguished the current case by pointing out the inconsistencies in the evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the contradiction between the oral testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence. The witnesses stated that the deceased was attacked with sharp weapons like swords and farsas, but the medical evidence indicated that the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt object. This discrepancy raised doubts about the specific role of each accused in causing the fatal injury. The court also considered the fact that the injured eyewitnesses arrived at the scene after the initial assault on the deceased.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency between oral and medical evidence | 40% |
| Nature of weapons used and injuries sustained | 30% |
| Credibility of eyewitness testimony | 20% |
| Applicability of Section 149 IPC | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the significant contradiction between the oral and medical evidence. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the inconsistencies raised reasonable doubts about the specific role of each accused in causing the fatal injury.
The court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- The fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon, while the accused were armed with sharp weapons like swords and farsas.
- The medical evidence did not support the claim that the injuries were caused by sharp weapons.
- The inconsistencies between the oral testimony and medical evidence raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice B. V. Nagarathna concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“The medical report submitted therein established that there were only contusions, abrasions and fractures, but there was no incised wound on the left knee of the deceased as alleged by a witness. Therefore, the evidence of the witness was found to be totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and that would be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case.”
“In the instant case, the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon on the left parietal bone. There is no corresponding injury to the weapons used by Ramesh (A-9), Daulal @ Daulatram (A-12), Mool Chand (A-19) and Shriram (A-20). Therefore, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302/149 is not justified.”
“While upholding the judgment of the High Court regarding the conviction and sentence of the Appellants under Sections 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and the sentence imposed for such offences, we convert the conviction under Sections 302/149 to 326/149 and sentence from life imprisonment to seven years.”
Key Takeaways
- Inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence can significantly impact the outcome of a criminal trial.
- The prosecution must establish a clear link between the actions of the accused and the injuries sustained by the victim.
- Convictions under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC can be altered if there is a lack of corroborating evidence, particularly when medical evidence contradicts the oral testimony.
- The Supreme Court does not normally re-appreciate evidence unless there is an error of law or procedure, but it will intervene if there are significant inconsistencies.
- The principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC remains a complex area of law.
Directions
The Supreme Court converted the conviction under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code to 326/149 and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years. The convictions and sentences under Sections 325/149, 324/149, and 323/149 were upheld.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence can lead to the alteration of a conviction for murder under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must establish a clear link between the actions of the accused and the injuries sustained by the victim. The court did not express any view on the validity of Section 149 IPC, leaving it open for future consideration.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Viram @ Virma vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the critical importance of consistency between oral testimony and medical evidence in criminal cases. The court altered the conviction from murder to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons due to the discrepancies in the evidence. This case serves as a reminder that while eyewitness testimony is valuable, it must be corroborated by other forms of evidence, including medical reports, to ensure a fair and just outcome.
Category
Parent category: Criminal Law
Child categories: Group Assault, Murder, Voluntarily Causing Hurt, Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Viram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether inconsistencies between the oral testimony of witnesses and the medical evidence warranted altering a conviction for murder in a case of group assault.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court altered the conviction from murder (Section 302/149 IPC) to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 326/149 IPC), reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years. The convictions under Sections 325/149, 324/149, and 323/149 were upheld.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court alter the conviction?
A: The Court altered the conviction because the medical evidence indicated that the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, while the witnesses claimed the accused used sharp weapons. This contradiction raised doubts about the specific role of each accused in causing the fatal injury.
Q: What is the significance of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 149 IPC deals with vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly. It states that if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offense in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, all members are guilty of that offense. The court did not express an opinion on the validity of Section 149 IPC in this case.
Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?
A: Key takeaways include the importance of consistency between oral and medical evidence, the need for the prosecution to establish a clear link between the actions of the accused and the injuries sustained by the victim, and the fact that convictions can be altered if there are significant inconsistencies in the evidence.
Q: What should I do if I am involved in a case with inconsistent oral and medical evidence?
A: If you are involved in a case with inconsistencies between oral and medical evidence, it is crucial to consult with a legal professional who can analyze the evidence and advise you on your rights and options. The judgment in Viram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh shows that such inconsistencies can significantly impact the outcome of a case.