Date of the Judgment: January 25, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 60
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitnesses turn hostile, and the only remaining evidence is the recovery of a weapon from a public place a month after the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Krishan vs. State of Haryana. This judgment highlights the importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases and emphasizes the need for thorough investigation. The bench comprised of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the judgment, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of two individuals, Pawan and Ajju Chaudhary. According to the prosecution, on January 3, 2004, Pawan visited his sister, Sushila, in Rohini. The complainant, Dharmender (PW-2), Pawan’s brother, stated that Pawan had a history of criminal activity. On January 4, 2004, Dharmender learned from his sister that Pawan had returned home. The next day, January 5, 2004, Dharmender was informed that Pawan had been shot dead. Subsequently, the police discovered the bodies of both Pawan and Ajju Chaudhary.
The prosecution presented 20 witnesses, with Mukesh (PW-1) and Vijender (PW-3) as alleged eyewitnesses. Sub-inspector Desh Raj (PW-15) and DSP Puran Chand (PW-20), the investigating officer, were also crucial witnesses, particularly regarding the recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the crime. The prosecution claimed that ballistic evidence linked the bullets found in Pawan’s body to a country-made pistol recovered at the appellant’s instance.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 3, 2004 | Pawan visits his sister Sushila in Rohini. |
| January 4, 2004 | Pawan returns home after meeting his sister. |
| January 5, 2004 | Pawan and Ajju Chaudhary are found dead. |
| February 9, 2004 | The appellant allegedly makes a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of a weapon. |
| September 19, 2007 | Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon convicts the appellant. |
| May 2, 2011 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirms the conviction. |
| January 25, 2024 | Supreme Court of India overturns the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant, Krishan, along with co-accused Mahesh, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges this conviction and sentence.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
, which deals with the punishment for murder. The case also involves Section 25 of the Arms Act
, concerning illegal possession of arms. The Supreme Court also considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
, which pertains to the admissibility of information received from an accused person that leads to the discovery of a fact.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The prosecution’s case hinges on the testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-3), who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
- The recovery of the weapon, the primary evidence against the appellant, is doubtful because:
- It was recovered from an open, public place.
- The recovery occurred more than a month after the incident.
- There were no independent witnesses to the recovery.
- The police witnesses gave contradictory statements about whether the weapon was buried or not.
- Dharmender (PW-2) suspected Naresh Yadav’s involvement in the murder, but the police did not investigate this lead.
- The appellant’s disclosure statement about showing the place where the dead bodies were thrown is inadmissible under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
, as the bodies were already recovered by the police.
State of Haryana’s Arguments:
- The recovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance is sufficient evidence to link him to the crime.
- The ballistic report confirms that the bullets found in the deceased’s body were fired from the recovered weapon.
- The State relied on several judgments to support the argument that a conviction can be based on the disclosure and recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness Testimony | PW-1 and PW-3 did not support the prosecution’s case. | Appellant |
| PW-1 and PW-3 were declared hostile. | Appellant | |
| Prosecution case is based on eyewitness account of PW-1 and PW-3. | Appellant | |
| Weapon Recovery | Recovery was made from an open place accessible to all. | Appellant |
| Recovery happened more than one month after the incident. | Appellant | |
| No independent witness to the recovery. | Appellant | |
| Police witnesses gave contradictory statements about whether the weapon was buried. | Appellant | |
| Recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant has been proved. | State of Haryana | |
| Disclosure Statement | Disclosure statement about the place where dead bodies were thrown is inadmissible. | Appellant |
| The place from which dead bodies were recovered was known to the police long before the disclosure. | Appellant | |
| Investigation | No investigation was carried out about the involvement of Naresh Yadav. | Appellant |
| Naresh Yadav was the first suspect. | Appellant | |
| Expert Report | The bullet found on the dead body could have been fired from the weapon recovered. | State of Haryana |
| Precedents | Conviction can be based on the disclosure and recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused. | State of Haryana |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s counsel innovatively argued that the disclosure statement regarding the location of the dead bodies was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
, as the bodies were already recovered by the police. This argument effectively challenged a key piece of evidence presented by the prosecution.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained based on the recovery of the weapon when the eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the recovery is doubtful.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction can be sustained based on the recovery of the weapon when the eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the recovery is doubtful. | Conviction overturned. | The eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution. The recovery of the weapon was deemed doubtful due to the circumstances of its discovery, lack of independent witnesses, and the time elapsed since the crime. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Pandian etc. v. State [2010] 14 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the State to argue that conviction can be based on disclosure and recovery of a weapon. | Conviction based on disclosure and recovery. |
| Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. [2003] 9 SCC 277 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the State to argue that conviction can be based on disclosure and recovery of a weapon. | Conviction based on disclosure and recovery. |
| State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Ors. [1974] 3 SCC 277 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the State to argue that conviction can be based on disclosure and recovery of a weapon. | Conviction based on disclosure and recovery. |
| State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr. [2001] 1 SCC 652 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the State to argue that conviction can be based on disclosure and recovery of a weapon. | Conviction based on disclosure and recovery. |
| Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr. etc. [2015] 7 SCC 148 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the State to argue that conviction can be based on disclosure and recovery of a weapon. | Conviction based on disclosure and recovery. |
| Suresh Chandra Bahri etc. v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the State to argue that conviction can be based on disclosure and recovery of a weapon. | Conviction based on disclosure and recovery. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code | – | Discussed in relation to the punishment for murder. | Punishment for murder. |
| Section 25, Arms Act | – | Discussed in relation to the illegal possession of arms. | Illegal possession of arms. |
| Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | – | Discussed in relation to the admissibility of information received from an accused. | Admissibility of information from an accused. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) did not support the prosecution. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the eyewitnesses were declared hostile, rendering their testimony unreliable. |
| The recovery of the weapon was doubtful due to the circumstances of its discovery. | The Court agreed that the recovery was suspicious because it was made from an open place, more than a month after the incident, without independent witnesses, and with contradictory statements from police witnesses. |
| The disclosure statement about the place where the dead bodies were thrown is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. | The Court upheld this submission, stating that the statement was inadmissible as the bodies were already recovered by the police. |
| The police did not investigate the role of Naresh Yadav, who was suspected by the complainant. | The Court noted this lapse in the investigation and considered it a serious flaw in the prosecution’s case. |
| The recovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance is sufficient evidence to link him to the crime. | The Court rejected this submission, finding the recovery to be unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction. |
| The ballistic report confirms that the bullets found in the deceased’s body were fired from the recovered weapon. | The Court acknowledged the report but found it insufficient to establish guilt given the doubts surrounding the weapon’s recovery. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The decisions cited by the State of Haryana, including John Pandian etc. v. State [2010] 14 SCC 129, Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. [2003] 9 SCC 277, State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Ors. [1974] 3 SCC 277, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr. [2001] 1 SCC 652, Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr. etc. [2015] 7 SCC 148, and Suresh Chandra Bahri etc. v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80, which supported convictions based on weapon recovery, were deemed insignificant due to the doubtful nature of the recovery in this specific case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The fact that the eyewitnesses turned hostile and the recovery of the weapon was highly suspicious weighed heavily on the court’s decision. The court also noted the lack of investigation into other potential suspects and the lapse in the investigation by not examining the independent witnesses who were available.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Doubtful recovery of the weapon | 40% |
| Hostile eyewitnesses | 30% |
| Lack of investigation into other suspects | 20% |
| Lapse in the investigation by not examining the independent witnesses | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the prosecution’s case (60%) than by purely legal considerations (40%).
- From an open space
- One month after the incident
- Without independent witnesses
- With contradictory police statements
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3, who did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
- The recovery of the weapon was made from an open space, accessible to many, and more than a month after the incident, making it highly suspicious.
- The police witnesses provided contradictory statements regarding the recovery, further undermining its credibility.
- The police failed to investigate the involvement of Naresh Yadav, who was a suspect according to the complainant.
- The court noted that the disclosure statement of the accused regarding the place where the dead bodies were thrown was inadmissible in evidence under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
, as the police had already recovered the dead bodies.
The court emphasized that “the evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant cannot be accepted as reliable.” It also stated that “once the evidence of recovery is disbelieved, it was a case of no evidence as the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution.” The court concluded that “the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant.”
There was no minority opinion in this case, as both judges on the bench agreed on the decision to overturn the conviction.
The implications of this judgment are that convictions based solely on doubtful evidence, especially when primary witnesses turn hostile, cannot be upheld. It underscores the need for a thorough and unbiased investigation and highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases.
Key Takeaways
- Convictions cannot be based solely on the recovery of a weapon if the circumstances of the recovery are suspicious and the primary witnesses are hostile.
- Police investigations must be thorough and unbiased, exploring all potential leads.
- The benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused if there is a lack of credible evidence.
- Disclosure statements made by the accused are only admissible if they lead to the discovery of a fact unknown to the police.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Krishan, be immediately set at liberty unless his custody was required in connection with any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a doubtful weapon recovery when the primary eyewitnesses turn hostile. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also clarifies that disclosure statements made by an accused are inadmissible if the facts disclosed were already known to the police. This case does not introduce a new position of law but reaffirms the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases.
Conclusion
In the case of Krishan vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant, Krishan, due to the unreliable nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court emphasized that the recovery of the weapon was doubtful, the eyewitnesses turned hostile, and there was a lack of proper investigation. This judgment highlights the importance of credible evidence and thorough investigation in criminal cases, ensuring that the benefit of the doubt is extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Murder, Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Weapon Recovery, Hostile Witness, Benefit of Doubt
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Krishan vs. State of Haryana case?
A: The main issue was whether a conviction for murder could be upheld based on the recovery of a weapon when the eyewitnesses turned hostile and the recovery was doubtful.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the conviction?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution’s case, the weapon recovery was deemed suspicious, and the police failed to investigate other potential suspects.
Q: What does it mean for an eyewitness to turn “hostile”?
A: When an eyewitness turns “hostile,” it means they do not support the prosecution’s case and may even contradict their previous statements, making their testimony unreliable.
Q: What is the significance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in this case?
A: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility of information received from an accused that leads to the discovery of a fact. In this case, the court ruled that the accused’s statement about the location of the dead bodies was inadmissible because the bodies were already discovered by the police.
Q: What is the “benefit of the doubt” in legal terms?
A: The “benefit of the doubt” means that if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment for future cases?
A: This judgment emphasizes that convictions cannot be based on doubtful evidence and that police investigations must be thorough and unbiased. It reinforces the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases.
Source: Krishan vs. State of Haryana