Supreme Court overturns conviction in attempt to murder case: Raju vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024) INSC 633 (31 July 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to murder was justified based on the evidence presented.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Raju and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment Date: 31 July 2024

Date of the Judgment: 31 July 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 633

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Dipankar Datta, J., and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a conviction for attempt to murder stand when the evidence is contradictory and the key witnesses are not examined? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, overturning a High Court’s decision and restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal. The case revolves around an alleged assault where the prosecution’s evidence was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. The bench comprised Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, with the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

On the night of May 7, 1994, a group of friends—Imran, Mathu, Irfan, and Jakir—were returning from a late-night movie show in Vikasnagar, Dehradun. They encountered the appellants, Raju and Bhola Ram, along with Manoj and Suresh, near Gopal’s house. According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by Farzan Ali, Imran’s father, Raju and Bhola Ram were armed with knives, while Manoj and Suresh carried lathis (bamboo sticks). An altercation ensued, during which Imran and Mathu were allegedly attacked with knives and lathis, while Irfan and Jakir sustained injuries while trying to intervene. The accused then fled the scene, presuming Imran and Mathu to be dead.

The FIR was lodged on May 8, 1994, at the Vikasnagar Police Station. The police investigated and filed a chargesheet. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant and his co-accused on October 13, 1995, after evaluating the prosecution witnesses, medical opinions, and the investigating officer’s statement. The State of Uttarakhand appealed this acquittal to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court partially allowed the appeal on December 10, 2009, convicting the Appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while confirming the acquittal of the other two accused. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against this conviction.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the offense of attempt to murder. According to the Court, a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires both the intent to cause death and an overt act in furtherance of that intention. The court noted that establishing the intention to kill or the knowledge that death may be caused is a factual question that depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court failed to properly assess the evidence, leading to an incorrect conviction.
• The complainant, Farzan Ali, was not an eyewitness and arrived at the scene only after the incident.
• There were significant contradictions between the FIR and the testimonies of the witnesses.
• The Trial Court had correctly noted the lack of evidence to prove that the Appellant and another accused were carrying knives and caused stab injuries.
• Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the injured witnesses and medical experts created gaps in the prosecution’s case.

State’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the Appellant, along with Bhola, voluntarily inflicted injuries on Mathu and Imran with knives, intending to cause death.
• The injured witness, Mathu, testified that both the Appellant and Bhola were armed with knives during the incident.
• The medical expert’s opinion aligned with Mathu’s testimony, indicating that his injuries were caused by a sharp object.

Innovativeness of the argument: The Appellant’s argument focused on the inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s case, highlighting the lack of direct evidence and the unreliability of the witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

✓ Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court referred to the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, 1983 (2) SCC 28 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to establish the principle that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires both the intention to cause death and an overt act in furtherance of that intention.
• Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 2678 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reinforce the principle that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires both the intention to cause death and an overt act in furtherance of that intention.
• Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy, (2018) 7 SCC 623 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that if discrepancies in witness testimonies create serious doubts about their veracity, the court may decline to rely on such evidence, especially when the evidence may falsely implicate innocent persons.
• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) SCR 1091 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the chain of evidence must be complete and leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
• Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 656 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the chain of evidence must be complete and leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
• Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the chain of evidence must be complete and leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
• Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the High Court should not overturn an acquittal by the Trial Court if the Trial Court’s understanding of the evidence is plausible and not marred by perversity.
• Ballu@Balram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1167.2018 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the High Court should not overturn an acquittal by the Trial Court if the Trial Court’s understanding of the evidence is plausible and not marred by perversity.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, 1983 (2) SCC 28* and Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 2678* to reiterate the legal principle that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires both intent and an overt act.
• The Court used Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy, (2018) 7 SCC 623* to emphasize that witness testimonies with serious discrepancies cannot be relied upon.
• The Court cited Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) SCR 1091*, Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 656*, and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622* to highlight that the prosecution’s chain of evidence must be complete and consistent.
• The Court used Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333* and Ballu@Balram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1167.2018* to reinforce that the High Court should not overturn a well-reasoned acquittal by the Trial Court unless there is perversity or misreading of evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s case. The Court noted the following points:

• The testimonies of the injured witnesses, Mathu and Imran, were contradictory regarding the sequence of events and the roles of the accused.
• The medical evidence did not fully support the prosecution’s claim of knife injuries.
• The FIR was lodged by a hearsay witness, Farzan Ali, who was not present at the scene.
• Key eyewitnesses, Jakir and Irfan, were not examined by the prosecution, creating a significant void in the evidence.
• There was no clear motive established for the alleged assault.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard due to significant inconsistencies and gaps in their evidence. The absence of key eyewitnesses and the hearsay nature of the FIR further weakened their case. The Court also emphasized that the High Court should not overturn a well-reasoned acquittal by the Trial Court unless there is a clear misreading of evidence or perversity.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the witnesses were truthful but confused, but rejected them due to the significant contradictions in their accounts and the lack of supporting evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case had to be consistent and reliable, which it was not in this instance.

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was weak and unreliable. The Court stated, “We, thus, find it quite unsafe to convict the Appellant on the basis of such laconic evidence.” The Court also noted, “The prosecution story has been demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses, including the medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR registered by a hearsay witness.” The Court further observed, “Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to be there in the account given by a witness, especially when there is conspicuous disparity between the date of the incident and the time of deposition. However, if the discrepancies are such that they create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may deduce and decline to rely on such evidence.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges agreeing that the High Court had erred in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires both intent to cause death and an overt act in furtherance of that intention.
• The prosecution’s case must be consistent and reliable, with no significant contradictions or gaps in the evidence.
• Hearsay evidence and the absence of key eyewitnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The High Court should not overturn a well-reasoned acquittal by the Trial Court unless there is a clear misreading of evidence or perversity.
• Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and medical evidence can cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order of conviction, and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal. The bail bonds furnished by the Appellant were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be sustained if the prosecution’s evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, and lacks key witnesses. This reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the courts must be cautious in overturning acquittals based on a thorough assessment of evidence. The judgment reinforces the importance of direct evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Raju vs. State of Uttarakhand highlights the importance of a thorough and consistent prosecution in criminal cases. The Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence and caution in overturning acquittals by the Trial Court. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required for convictions under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.