Supreme Court overturns acquittal in murder case: Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala (2021)

Date of the Judgment: July 26, 2021
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2014
Judges: Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Can a High Court reverse a Trial Court’s conviction based on a perceived inconsistency between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the High Court’s acquittal and restoring the Trial Court’s conviction. The case centered on a fatal assault where the accused were known to the victim, raising questions about the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the interpretation of medical findings. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

On October 1, 2003, at approximately 2:30 AM, the deceased was attacked while riding a motorcycle with PW-2 as the pillion rider. The respondents allegedly assaulted the deceased with iron pipes, steel rods, and sticks, inflicting three stab wounds and nine incised wounds. The Trial Court convicted the respondents under Section 302 (murder), Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. However, the High Court reversed this conviction, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court had convicted the respondents under Sections 302, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment, and also under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The High Court, however, overturned this conviction, citing inconsistencies between the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and the weapons used. The High Court’s acquittal led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Additionally, Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act was also invoked, although the primary focus of the appeal was on the murder charges under the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (represented by Amicus Curiae):

• The First Information Report (FIR) was promptly lodged by PW-2, who named all four respondents.
• The deceased, PW-2, and the respondents were well-acquainted, and previous disputes existed between them.
• PW-12 testified that the respondents had previously threatened the deceased.
• The testimony of PW-2 was corroborated by PW-10, an independent security guard, who witnessed the assault.
• There were street lights near the scene of the crime, aiding visibility.
• The medical evidence was not inconsistent with the eyewitness testimony as the iron rod used had a sharp edge capable of causing incised injuries.
• Reliance was placed on Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 (2) SCC 174, State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and Another, 1988 (4) SCC 302, and Baleshwar Mahto vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (3) SCC 152 to argue that ocular evidence should be given precedence unless it is completely inconsistent with medical evidence.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Reliance was placed on Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, 1996 (9) SCC 225, Dhanna vs. State of M.P. with Kanhiyalal and another vs. State of M.P., 1996 (10) SCC 79, and Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (10) SCC 450.
• Stab and incised injuries could not have been caused by a steel rod or iron pipe.
• The recovery of weapons was doubtful as the seizure witnesses turned hostile.
• There was no FSL report linking the weapons to the respondents through fingerprints.
• The area where the incident occurred was not well-lit, making identification difficult.
• PW-2 was not a reliable eyewitness as he ran away from the spot.
• PW-14 did not mention stab or incised injuries, and PW-1 admitted that such injuries could not be caused by an iron rod.
• There was no motive for the crime, and it was a chance meeting.
• The respondents have already served a significant portion of their sentence.
• The conviction may be altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), with the sentence limited to the period already undergone.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s conviction based on its assessment of the evidence, particularly concerning the alleged inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The Court found the testimony of PW-2 and PW-10 to be credible and consistent. PW-2’s prompt reporting of the incident and naming of the accused, along with PW-10’s corroborating account, were crucial.
• Consistency of Evidence: The Court determined that the High Court had erred in finding an inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The medical evidence, particularly the nature of the injuries and the potential of the iron rod to cause them, was consistent with the eyewitness accounts.
• Misappreciation of Evidence: The Court held that the High Court had misappreciated the evidence by overlooking the fact that the iron rod had a sharp edge.
• Rejection of Benefit of Doubt: The Court clarified that the case was not one where two views were possible, thus rejecting the argument that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law, with a greater emphasis on the legal principles governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on a misinterpretation of the evidence. The High Court had focused on a perceived inconsistency between the eyewitness testimony and the medical evidence, specifically regarding the nature of the injuries and the weapons used. However, the Supreme Court noted that the medical evidence was not inconsistent with the eyewitness testimony, as the iron rod used had a sharp edge capable of causing incised wounds. The Court emphasized that ocular evidence should be given precedence unless it is completely inconsistent with medical evidence. The Court also highlighted the credibility of the eyewitnesses, PW-2 and PW-10, and noted that the High Court had not doubted the credibility of PW-2. The Court stated, “Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it.” The Court also observed that “It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.” The Court concluded that “the acquittal by the High Court is based on misappreciation of the evidence and the overlooking of relevant evidence thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion.”

Key Takeaways

• Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are strong reasons to doubt it.
• Medical evidence should be consistent with ocular evidence, but minor inconsistencies are not grounds to reject credible eyewitness testimony.
• Appellate courts should not overturn acquittals unless the lower court’s decision is clearly perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence.
• Identification of known persons is possible even in low-light conditions, based on familiarity, voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to surrender within two weeks to serve out the remaining period of their sentence. The Director General of Police, State of Gujarat, was directed to take necessary steps to apprehend the absconding fourth accused and bring him to justice, with a report to be submitted to the Court within eight weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not overturn a trial court’s conviction based on a minor inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that if the medical evidence is not completely inconsistent with the ocular evidence, then the ocular evidence should be given precedence. This reaffirms the position of law that the testimony of eye-witnesses is paramount and should not be disregarded unless there is a complete contradiction with medical evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court cannot overturn a conviction unless it is based on a misappreciation of evidence or is perverse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal and restoring the Trial Court’s conviction of the respondents under Sections 302, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the consistency between the ocular and medical evidence, finding that the High Court had erred in its appreciation of the evidence. The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony and the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when overturning trial court convictions.