Supreme Court Overturns Acquittal in Deadly Holi Attack Case: State of Rajasthan vs. Bablu @ Om Prakash (24 November 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 745

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction when multiple eyewitnesses identify the accused in a violent crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a deadly attack during the Holi festival. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in acquitting 11 accused persons despite the Trial Court finding them guilty based on eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On March 8, 2012, during the Holi festival, a violent incident occurred at the residence of Sunil, where he and several others were attacked. The First Information Report (FIR) stated that a group of individuals, including Rajendra, Janak, Ramu @ Ramsingh, and others, entered Sunil’s house armed with weapons. They assaulted Dhanpal, Sunil’s brother, causing severe injuries. Dhanpal later succumbed to his injuries during treatment. Sunil also sustained injuries during the attack. The incident led to the registration of FIR No.75 of 2012 at Police Station Kaithun.

The police investigation led to the arrest of 13 individuals, who were subsequently charged with offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with Sections 149, 307 or 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court convicted all 13 accused, but the High Court later acquitted 11 of them, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after examining 40 prosecution witnesses and considering the evidence, convicted all 13 accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including rioting, unlawful assembly, house trespass, murder, and attempt to murder. The Trial Court found the eyewitness accounts credible and consistent.

However, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, in its judgment dated 04.12.2018, overturned the convictions of 11 accused, stating that the eyewitnesses did not specifically assign weapons or injuries to these accused. The High Court upheld the conviction of only two accused, Rajendra alias Tanti (A2) and Janak Singh (A3), who were directly implicated in causing head injuries to the deceased. The High Court also noted a prior incident where the complainant party had attacked the accused party, suggesting a motive for over-implication.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the concept of vicarious liability for offenses committed by members of an 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 450, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relates to house-trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment for life.
• Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relates to house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the offense of murder.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses the offense of attempt to murder.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The eyewitness accounts were clear and consistent, specifically describing the actions of each accused.
• The High Court failed to provide valid reasons for disregarding the Trial Court’s findings and the eyewitness testimonies.
• The High Court’s decision to acquit 11 accused was not based on sound legal principles.
• The eyewitnesses, including the injured, had no reason to falsely implicate the accused.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• There was a prior incident four days before the current one, in which some of the accused were injured. This suggested a motive for over-implication of the accused.
• The High Court rightly found that there was no specific assignment of weapons or injuries by the eyewitnesses to the acquitted accused.
• The High Court was justified in recording an acquittal based on the lack of specific evidence against 11 accused.
• The recovery of weapons from the accused was not sufficient to prove their guilt without specific evidence of their actions during the incident.

The arguments of the appellants focused on the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and the lack of a valid basis for the High Court to overturn the Trial Court’s decision. Conversely, the respondents argued that the High Court correctly identified the lack of specific evidence against 11 of the accused, highlighting the possibility of over-implication due to previous enmity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s conviction of 11 accused persons.
2. Whether the eyewitness accounts were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
3. Whether the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was correctly applied by the Trial Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The Court noted that the eyewitness testimony was consistent and credible, especially the accounts of PW1-Sunil Kumar, the injured brother of the deceased, and PW27-Tulsiram. The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in its approach by requiring specific assignment of weapons and injuries to each accused, which is not necessary when the accused are part of an unlawful assembly with a common object.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle in Masalti vs. State of U.P. [(1964) 8 SCR 133 ; AIR 1965 SC 202] applies when there is no specific overt act attributed to the accused, but in this case, there was specific evidence against some of the accused. The Court also referred to State of Maharashtra vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and others [(2015) 15 SCC 77] which explained the principles in the Masalti case. The Court stated that the test adopted in Masalti was not to apply to cases where specific allegations and overt acts constituting the offence are alleged or ascribed to certain named assailants. If such test is to be adopted even where there are specific allegations and overt acts attributed to certain named assailants, it would directly run counter to the well-known maxim that “evidence has to be weighed and not counted” as statutorily recognised in Section 134 of the Evidence Act.

The Court then adopted a criteria where, if any of the eyewitnesses (other than PW6), apart from and in addition to PWs 1 and 27 had adverted to and attributed overt acts to any of the accused , the role of such accused can be taken to have been established beyond any doubt.

Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13, restoring their conviction and sentence as recorded by the Trial Court. The rest of the accused were given the benefit of doubt, and their acquittal by the High Court was confirmed.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Masalti vs. State of U.P. [(1964) 8 SCR 133 ; AIR 1965 SC 202]* – The Court followed the principles set out in this case, clarifying that the need for corroboration arises when no specific overt act is attributed to the accused.
• State of Maharashtra vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and others [(2015) 15 SCC 77]* – The Court relied on this case to understand the principles of Masalti and to clarify that the test of corroboration is not applicable when specific overt acts are attributed to the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible eyewitness testimony, particularly that of PW1 and PW27. The Court also emphasized the need to uphold the Trial Court’s findings when they are based on sound evidence. The Court was also influenced by the fact that there was specific evidence against some of the accused, which made the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applicable to them.

The Court was cautious in applying the principle of vicarious liability and adopted a criteria to ensure that only those accused with specific evidence against them were convicted. This approach aimed to avoid over-implication and ensure that the conviction was based on concrete evidence.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretations of the evidence, but rejected them based on the consistent eyewitness testimony and the specific overt acts attributed to some of the accused. The Court clarified that the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies to those who share a common object, but adopted a criteria to determine individual participation.

The Court’s decision was reached by weighing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s approach was against settled legal principles and that the eyewitness testimony was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In the face of such clear, consistent and cogent evidence on record, the High Court was not justified in proceeding on the basis that the eyewitnesses had not named other accused in specific terms or entertaining any doubt and then recording order of acquittal.”

“We find the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court to be completely unjust and its conclusion to be totally against the record.”

“In these appeals against acquittal, therefore, we do not find ourselves persuaded to go by the order of acquittal passed by the High Court as the same, in our considered view, was manifestly erroneous and perverse.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Eyewitness Testimony: The judgment reinforces the importance of credible and consistent eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.
• Application of Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court clarified the application of vicarious liability under Section 149, emphasizing the need for a common object and specific evidence of participation.
• Reversal of Acquittal: The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s acquittal highlights the importance of following settled legal principles and not disregarding credible evidence.
• Criteria for Conviction: The Court adopted a criteria that required specific evidence of overt acts by the accused for conviction, especially when multiple accused are involved.
• Future Impact: This judgment may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving multiple accused and eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence and the application of settled legal principles.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the convicted accused (A1, A6, A7, A8, A10, and A13) shall surrender themselves within four weeks from the date of the judgment. Failing that, they shall be taken into custody to serve out their sentences. The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the concerned Police Station and the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court’s conviction of several accused based on consistent eyewitness testimony and specific evidence of their overt acts. The judgment clarifies that in cases involving multiple accused, the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies to those who share a common object. The Court also reiterated the principle that “evidence has to be weighed and not counted” as statutorily recognised in Section 134 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court’s acquittal of six accused (A1, A6, A7, A8, A10, and A13) and restoring their conviction and sentence as recorded by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the proper application of legal principles, particularly in cases involving multiple accused and vicarious liability. The judgment underscores the need for a thorough examination of evidence and adherence to settled legal principles.