Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to flawed investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 25

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12th January 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 25

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a conviction for murder stand when the investigation is riddled with inconsistencies and the evidence is contradictory? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a double murder, where the prosecution’s case was severely undermined by a flawed investigation. The Court overturned the conviction, highlighting the importance of a fair and unbiased investigation.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and M.M. Sundresh. The judgment was authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case revolves around a tragic incident that occurred on July 25, 1992, at approximately 10:00 a.m. The appellants and the deceased had a history of enmity stemming from a water dispute and the deceased’s purchase of properties in the appellants’ village. On the day of the incident, the deceased, Hukum Singh, along with Kishori Kachi and Hakim Singh (P.W.12), were allegedly attacked by the appellants and their group. The attackers, armed with weapons, took the three victims to their place despite the requests of Bhogiram and Bhaggo Bai (P.W.18). Bhogiram was later dumped on the way, while the other two were severely injured. Hukum Singh died three days later on July 28, 1992.

The initial complaint, known as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-28), was recorded by P.W.20, the Police Officer, based on Hukum Singh’s statement. However, the circumstances surrounding this statement and the subsequent investigation raised serious concerns.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants, along with other accused, under Sections 148, 302/149, and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the life imprisonment for the murder of Kishori Kachi but modified the sentence for the death of Hukum Singh to one punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Several accused died during the proceedings, and some completed their sentences. The appellants, having served nine years, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

These sections define the offenses of rioting, murder, culpable homicide, and the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly. The Court also considered the role of the investigating officer and the admissibility of dying declarations.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• There were three different first information reports, creating discrepancies in the prosecution’s version.
• The prosecution witnesses’ statements were self-contradictory and inconsistent.
• No witness corroborated the recording of the Dehati Nalishi by P.W.20.
• The deceased Hukum Singh was unconscious, and the language of Ex. P-28 indicated a legally trained mind, not that of the deceased.
• The thumb impression on Ex. P-28 was not proved, and its placement was suspicious.
• P.W.20 contradicted himself on several points and did not disclose the source of his initial information.
• There was no explanation for not examining P.W.12, an eye witness according to Ex. P-28.
• The charge under Section 149 of the IPC was not made out as there was no explanation for not including the scores of other persons involved.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Two injured witnesses testified about the incident, and one was the author of the first information report.
• The contradictions were minor and should be disregarded.
• The statement of the deceased Hukum Singh should be treated as a dying declaration.
• Both lower courts concurrently found the appellants guilty, and therefore, the evidence need not be re-evaluated.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key questions:

1. Whether the investigation was fair and unbiased, considering the multiple first information reports and the conduct of the investigating officer.
2. Whether the statement of the deceased Hukum Singh could be considered a valid dying declaration, given the circumstances of its recording.
3. Whether the evidence of the eye witnesses was credible and reliable, especially given the lack of test identification parade and the contradictions in their statements.
4. Whether the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable given the large number of people involved in the incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the cited authorities to support its findings on various points:

• Charan Singh and Others v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205: Used to highlight the impact of discrepancies in witness statements.
• Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Others, (2017) 3 SCC 261: Used to emphasize the unreliability of contradictory evidence.
• Balmukund Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2019) 5 SCC 469: Used to stress the need for credible witness evidence.
• Vyas Ram v. State of Bihar, (2013) 12 SCC 349: Used to highlight the importance of a fair investigation.
• Akbar Sheikh and Others v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 7 SCC 415: Used to highlight the importance of credible dying declaration.
• Nagarjit Ahir v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 369: Used to emphasize the importance of the investigating officer’s role.
• Sherey and Others v. State of U.P., 1991 SCC (Cri) 1059: (1991) Supp (2) SCC 437: Used to emphasize the importance of Test Identification Parade.
• Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 1 SCC 733: Used to highlight the importance of credible witness testimony.
• Munna Chanda v. State of Assam (2006) 3 SCC 752: Used to highlight the importance of recording of dying declaration by a magistrate.
• Debashish Daw and Others v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 9 SCC 111: Used to emphasize the importance of a fair investigation.
• Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, (2016) 9 SCC 1: Used to emphasize the importance of the investigating officer’s role.
• Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and Another, (2012) 4 SCC 379: Used to highlight the importance of credible witness testimony.
• Rajeevan & Anr. v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355: Used to highlight the importance of recording of dying declaration by a magistrate.
• Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393: Used to highlight the importance of credible witness testimony.
• Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2005) 5 SCC 258: Used to emphasize the importance of a fair investigation.
• Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1050: (2005) 5 SCC 272: Used to emphasize the importance of a fair investigation.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and Others, (2020) 12 SCC 630: Used to emphasize that only the earliest information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348: Used to emphasize that there cannot be a second FIR.
• Subramaniam v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 415: Used to emphasize that if an FIR is filed after recording the statement of the witnesses, such second information would be inadmissible in evidence.
• Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of A.P., (2014) 12 SCC 261: Used to emphasize that the non-treatment of statements of injured witnesses as the first information cast doubt on the prosecution version.
• Arvind Kumar @Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1099: Used to emphasize the need for fair investigation and the scope of Section 149.
• Kumar v. State, (2018) 7 SCC 536: Used to emphasize the importance of a fair investigation.
• Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50: Used to highlight that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt.
• Munnu Raja and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 3 SCC 104: Used to emphasize that the practice of the investigating officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged.
• State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1494: Used to emphasize that there is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate.
• Gireesan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180: Used to highlight the importance of Test Identification Parade.
• Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 16 SCC 752: Used to emphasize that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of the unlawful assembly.
• Baladin v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 181: Used to emphasize that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person a member of the unlawful assembly.
• Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202: Used to emphasize the crucial question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141.
• Bajwa v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 714: Used to emphasize that in a faction-ridden society there is always a tendency to implicate even the innocent with the guilty.
• Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283: Used to emphasize that there is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses have identified a particular accused as a member of the unlawful assembly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the following:

• Flawed Investigation: The Court noted the presence of three different first information reports, the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and the suspicious nature of the Dehati Nalishi. The investigating officer’s conduct was also called into question.
• Dying Declaration: The Court doubted the validity of the deceased’s statement as a dying declaration, given the circumstances of its recording, the possibility that the deceased was unconscious, and the apparent legal language used.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the eye witness testimonies unreliable, as they identified the accused for the first time in court, and there was no test identification parade.
• Section 149, IPC: The Court was circumspect about applying Section 149, given the large number of persons involved and the lack of clear evidence of a common object.

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual discrepancies and the flawed investigation (60%) than by purely legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The appellants were acquitted of all charges. The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution’s case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the critical importance of a fair, unbiased, and thorough investigation in criminal cases. The Court’s emphasis on the reliability of evidence and the need for a robust prosecution case serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid proof, not on suspicion or speculation. This judgment reinforces the principle that the justice system must protect the innocent and ensure that no one is wrongly convicted due to flawed investigations or unreliable evidence.

This case also highlights the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards, such as the proper recording of dying declarations and the conduct of test identification parades. It serves as a cautionary tale for investigating agencies to maintain the highest standards of integrity and impartiality in their work.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Fair Investigation: The investigation must be thorough, unbiased, and free from inconsistencies.
• Reliability of Evidence: The evidence presented by the prosecution must be credible and consistent.
• Dying Declarations: Dying declarations must be recorded in a proper manner, ensuring the declarant is conscious and capable of making a statement.
• Test Identification Parade: Test identification parades are essential when the witnesses do not know the accused personally.
• Application of Section 149, IPC: Courts must be circumspect in applying Section 149, ensuring that the common object of the unlawful assembly is clearly established.
• Benefit of Doubt: The benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused.