Supreme Court overturns conviction in brutal multiple murder case: Ankush Maruti Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2019

Citation: Not Available in the provided document.

Judges: A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah

Can a conviction be upheld when the primary evidence is the identification of the accused by witnesses whose reliability is questionable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a brutal multiple murder, robbery, and rape. The court examined the validity of the convictions based on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, raising significant concerns about the fairness of the investigation and the reliability of the identification process.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment. The opinion was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a horrific incident that occurred on the night of June 5, 2003, in a hut located within a guava orchard. Trambak, along with his family members and a guest, Bharat More, were present when seven to eight unknown individuals, dressed in banyans and half pants, forcibly entered their dwelling. The intruders demanded money and ornaments, leading to a series of violent acts. Initially, the family handed over Rs. 3,000 and some jewelry. However, the assailants returned with weapons like knives, axes, and sickles, escalating the violence. They assaulted family members, tying up everyone except Manoj and Vimalabai. The attackers then dragged Savita out of the hut and raped her, while Vimalabai was also assaulted. The dacoits left the hut, believing all the victims were dead. However, Manoj and Vimalabai survived. The victims were identified as Trambak, his daughter Savita, his nephew Bharat, and his sons Sandeep and Bhurya. Manoj and his mother Vimalabai survived the attack.

The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimonies of Manoj (PW1) and Vimalabai (PW8), who were the only survivors and claimed to have identified the accused. The accused were charged under Sections 395, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 376 (2)(g), Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Sections 396, 397 and 398 of the IPC.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 395, IPC: Deals with the offense of dacoity, which is robbery committed by five or more persons.
• Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC: Addresses the offense of murder committed with common intention. Section 34 states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 376(2)(g), IPC: Concerns the offense of rape committed by a group of persons.
• Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC: Addresses the offense of attempt to murder committed with common intention.
• Section 396, IPC: Deals with murder during dacoity.
• Section 397, IPC: Deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• Section 398, IPC: Deals with attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon.

Arguments

Accused’s Arguments:

• The accused argued that the identification by PW1 and PW8 was unreliable due to poor lighting conditions, the witnesses being injured and possibly unconscious, and the delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP).
• They contended that there was no forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprint matches, linking them to the crime. The prosecution’s case relied solely on the testimonies of the two eye witnesses.
• The accused highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW1 and PW8, including the number of assailants and the roles attributed to each accused. PW8 had also identified different people from photographs shown to her shortly after the incident, which contradicted her later identification of the accused.
• They pointed out that PW8 failed to identify A2 in the TIP but later identified him in court as the rapist, which was not reliable.
• The defense argued that the prosecution suppressed crucial evidence, including PW8’s earlier identification of other individuals as the perpetrators.
• The accused argued that the injuries found on them could be due to agricultural work and not necessarily due to resistance from the victims.
• They stated that the delay in the TIP was not explained and the dummies in the TIP were selected by the police and not the Magistrate.
• The accused also argued that the recovery of a broken silver chain was not sufficient evidence to link them to the crime.
• They emphasized that the culprits spoke in Hindi, while they are Marathi speakers, suggesting a case of mistaken identity.

State of Maharashtra’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court should not be disturbed.
• They asserted that the prosecution had successfully proven the case through the testimonies of PW1 and PW8, who were injured eyewitnesses.
• The State contended that the minor omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW8 were not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• They argued that the identification of the accused by the witnesses in the TIP and before the court was reliable.
• The State highlighted the recovery of a white metal chain as evidence linking the accused to the crime.
• They argued that the failure of the accused to explain the injuries on their bodies was an incriminating circumstance.
• The State also contended that the medical evidence established the rape of Savita.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused based solely on the identification by eye-witnesses is sustainable, especially when there are doubts about the reliability of the witnesses and the fairness of the investigation.
2. Whether the prosecution has suppressed material facts from the court.
3. Whether there was a fair investigation.
4. Whether the High Court was right in convicting the accused under section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities to arrive at its decision:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vaikuntam Chandrappa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 1340:* The Court relied on this case to highlight the possibility of mistaken identity, underscoring that the identification evidence in this case was not reliable.
• Iqbal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 623:* The Court used this case to emphasize that a conviction cannot rest solely on identification evidence without any corroborating evidence, which was lacking in the present case.
• Ram Sunder Sen vs. Narender, (2016) 15 SCC 440:* The Court applied the principle that the mere failure to explain injuries cannot be held against the accused if the injuries could be due to other reasons.
• V.K. Sasikala v. State represented by Superintendent (2012) 9 SCC 771:* The Court used this case to emphasize the duty of the investigating officer to evaluate all evidence and to not suppress evidence that may exonerate the accused.
• Darya Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 328:* The Court relied on this case to highlight the duty of the prosecution to act fairly and honestly and to not suppress evidence that may go against their case.
• State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108:* The Court used this case to emphasize the need for a procedural mechanism to examine acquittals and to take action against erring investigation officers.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors:

• The Court found the identification evidence by PW1 and PW8 to be unreliable due to poor lighting conditions, the witnesses being injured and possibly unconscious, and the delay in the TIP.
• The absence of corroborating forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, weakened the prosecution’s case.
• The Court noted the significant inconsistencies and omissions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW8, as well as PW8’s earlier identification of other individuals.
• The Court was concerned about the suppression of material facts by the prosecution, particularly the withholding of PW8’s earlier statement and the lack of investigation into the four persons she had initially identified.
• The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and honest investigation, which was found lacking in this case.
• The court noted that the accused were from nomadic tribes and were arrested on transfer warrants, which raised doubts about their involvement.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of reliable evidence and the serious lapses in the investigation. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The identification of the accused by PW1 and PW8 was not reliable.
• There was a lack of corroborating evidence, including forensic evidence and recovery of stolen property.
• The prosecution suppressed material facts, including PW8’s earlier identification of other individuals.
• The investigation was not fair and honest.
• The accused were from nomadic tribes and were arrested on transfer warrants.

The court also noted that the High Court had erred in convicting the accused under section 376(2)(g) of the IPC due to the lack of evidence.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

“The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Therefore, we have no other alternative, but to acquit the accused for the offences for which they are convicted.”

“The prosecution/investigating agency is expected to act in an honest and fair manner without hiding anything from the accused as well as the Courts, which may go against the prosecution.”

Key Takeaways

• Convictions based solely on eyewitness identification can be overturned if the identification is unreliable due to poor conditions, inconsistencies, or suppression of evidence.
• The prosecution must ensure a fair and honest investigation, and not suppress any material evidence that may go against their case.
• The absence of corroborating evidence, such as forensic evidence, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The court emphasized that the accused are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• The judgment underscores the importance of fair trial and the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused.
• The State is required to take action against erring investigation officers.

The judgment may lead to stricter scrutiny of eyewitness testimony and a greater emphasis on forensic and other corroborating evidence in criminal trials. It also highlights the need for thorough and impartial investigations.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The State of Maharashtra was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the accused.
• The Chief Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra, was directed to identify and take action against erring officers responsible for the lapses in investigation.
• The prosecution was directed to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua those four persons who were identified by PW8 on 7.6.2003.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of eyewitness identification if there are doubts about the reliability of the witnesses and the fairness of the investigation. The court also emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the duty of the prosecution to act fairly and honestly. There is a change in the previous position of law in so far as the court has held that the investigating agency should not suppress any material evidence from the court and the accused and that the accused should be given a fair trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused in a brutal multiple murder case, citing unreliable eyewitness identification, lack of corroborating evidence, suppression of material facts by the prosecution, and an unfair investigation. The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused. The State of Maharashtra was directed to pay compensation to the accused, and the prosecution was directed to conduct further investigation into the matter.