Supreme Court overturns conviction in attempted murder case: State of Uttarakhand vs. Jairnail Singh (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 945
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can a High Court reverse a Trial Court’s conviction based on discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an alleged attempted murder. The Court examined whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s decision, focusing on the importance of material evidence and the standard of appellate review. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

On December 8, 1999, a dispute arose between Akbar Ali and Jairnail Singh during a paddy weighing transaction in Devipura village. Akbar Ali was allegedly weighing paddy for Jairnail Singh when Jairnail Singh accused Akbar Ali of weighing more paddy than recorded. This led to an argument. On December 12, 1999, at approximately 11:00 AM, Jairnail Singh allegedly pulled out a country-made pistol and shot Akbar Ali in the temple. Asgar Ali, the complainant and brother of the victim, along with others, attempted to apprehend Jairnail Singh, but he escaped. Akbar Ali was taken to several hospitals before being examined in Pilibhit. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Asgar Ali at Police Station Nanakmatta, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, committed the case to the Session Court. The Sessions Judge framed charges against Jairnail Singh under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for attempted murder and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, for possession of an illegal weapon. The Trial Court convicted Jairnail Singh on March 1, 2005, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 307 of the IPC, and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Jairnail Singh appealed to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. On May 22, 2014, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Trial Court’s conviction. The State of Uttarakhand then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves two primary legal provisions:
✓ Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It 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.”
✓ Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section addresses the possession of illegal arms. It states, “Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Uttarakhand) Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court should not have reversed the Trial Court’s well-reasoned judgment.
• The testimony of the three eyewitnesses (PWs-1, 2, and 3) was credible and sufficient for conviction.
• Any discrepancies in the evidence were minor and should have been ignored, citing the principle that minor discrepancies should not affect the prosecution’s case as per Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC 654.
• The ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be accepted to convict the respondent under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.

Respondent (Jairnail Singh) Arguments:

• The respondent supported the High Court’s judgment, stating that it was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.
• The infirmities noticed by the High Court in the prosecution’s case were material and justified the reversal of the Trial Court’s judgment.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s conviction of the respondent under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC 654*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the infirmities in the present case were not minor but material. The court held that the principle of ignoring minor discrepancies was not applicable here due to the significant nature of the issues identified by the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Inconsistencies in the FIR: The complainant’s initial statement to the Chief Medical Superintendent did not mention the accused by name, instead referring to “some sardars.” This inconsistency raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
• Improbable Weapon Recovery: The court found it improbable that the accused would keep the pistol in his pocket for an extended period after the incident.
• Lack of Forensic Evidence: The failure to send the weapon and other seized articles for forensic examination weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Non-Production of Weapon Before Magistrate: The Investigating Officer’s admission that the weapon was not produced before the Magistrate raised procedural concerns.
• Medical Evidence Discrepancy: The absence of a specific mark on the victim’s body, which should have been present according to medical evidence, further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, was entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the Trial Court’s judgment if there were material contradictions or infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The Court found that the High Court had correctly identified such issues, and therefore, the decision to acquit the accused was justified.

The Court stated, “In other words, it cannot be said that the aforementioned infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses.”

The Court further noted, “The prosecution, in our view, should have taken care of some of the infirmities noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have been taken before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. It was, however, not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, accordingly, rightly given to the respondent by the High Court.”

The Court also clarified its role in appeals against acquittals, stating, “Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in this appeal, unless we are able to notice any kind of illegality in the impugned judgment, we cannot interfere in such judgment.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence in appeals against convictions.
• Material infirmities in the prosecution’s case can lead to the reversal of a conviction.
• The prosecution must address all significant discrepancies and procedural lapses before filing a charge-sheet.
• Appeals against acquittals are only allowed if there is an illegality or perversity in the High Court’s judgment.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, can reverse a Trial Court’s conviction if it identifies material infirmities in the prosecution’s case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must ensure the integrity of its evidence and address all significant discrepancies and procedural lapses. This case does not change any previous positions of law but rather reaffirms the existing principles of appellate review and the importance of thorough investigation and evidence presentation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit Jairnail Singh. The Court found that the High Court had correctly identified material infirmities in the prosecution’s case, including inconsistencies in the FIR, improbable weapon recovery, lack of forensic evidence, non-production of the weapon before the Magistrate, and discrepancies in medical evidence. These infirmities, the Court held, justified the reversal of the Trial Court’s conviction. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a thorough investigation and the High Court’s role in ensuring justice through proper appellate review.