Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case: Bhaskarrao & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (26 April 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2018

Citation: Not Available in the source

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a murder case based on a differing interpretation of evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where multiple accused were convicted by the High Court after being acquitted by the trial court. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the High Court’s reasoning, ultimately overturning the convictions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the opinion authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

On 19th June 1995, an altercation occurred in Jalka Shahapur village between Shamrao (the deceased) and Balya (Accused No. 4) over a debt of Rs. 50. During this scuffle, Shamrao allegedly slapped Balya. Later that day, a group of sixteen individuals, including the accused, allegedly entered Shamrao’s house, dragged him out, and assaulted him with weapons. The group allegedly continued to assault Shamrao while dragging him to a field, where they cut off his right palm and left him. Shamrao’s wife, Chanda (PW1), witnessed the initial assault and sought help from a neighbor, Harshwardhan Bhalekar. They then informed Shamrao’s family and went to the police. A complaint was lodged on 20th June 1995. The police found Shamrao’s body on 21st June 1995 in a field, with his severed palm located nearby.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after examining 19 witnesses, acquitted all the accused (except accused no. 16, who was absconding at the time). The trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The State of Maharashtra appealed this acquittal to the High Court. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting all the accused except accused no. 6 (who had passed away during the appeal). The High Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including life imprisonment for murder.

Legal Framework

The accused were charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 452 read with Section 149, IPC: House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, read with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC: Punishment for murder, read with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Section 149 of the IPC deals with the concept of constructive liability, where members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed by any member of that assembly if the offense was committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Accused):

• The entire prosecution story was fabricated to falsely implicate the appellants.
• There were significant lapses in the prosecution’s case, including the lack of eyewitnesses to the murder, the absence of bloodstains on recovered weapons, and the fact that all prosecution witnesses were related to each other.
• The deceased’s body was found two kilometers away from his house, and there was no evidence to prove who cut off his palm.
• The prosecution had improved its story from the time of lodging the FIR to the conclusion of the trial.
• The FIR mentioned only four accused persons, but sixteen were charged.
• Witness statements varied regarding the presence of the accused and were contradictory to the prosecution’s case.
• No test identification parade was conducted, and the witnesses were not familiar with all the accused.
• The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular evidence, as there were no injuries on vital parts of the deceased’s body.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s acquittal, as the trial court had not committed any legal errors.
• The High Court failed to consider that no test identification parade was conducted, no motive was established, no injuries on vital parts of the deceased were noted, and medical evidence did not corroborate with the alleged ocular evidence.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Maharashtra):

• The trial court wrongly disbelieved the prosecution’s witnesses without valid reasons.
• Minor discrepancies in the witness depositions were unduly emphasized.
• The accused brutally assaulted the deceased, dragging him to the fields and attacking him with sticks, an axe, and a sword.
• The High Court correctly assessed the facts and circumstances of the case, and there was no legal error in its order.
• PW1, the wife of the deceased, tried to save her husband, but the accused attacked him indiscriminately, leading to his death.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the findings of the trial court.
2. Whether there were compelling reasons for the High Court to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused appellants of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

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 authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on precedents such as Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab [1987 CriLJ 974]*, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat [1996 CriLJ 2867]*, and Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State [1952 CriLJ 331]* to emphasize that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s approach was manifestly illegal or perverse. The Court also cited Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1954) 1 SCR 145]*, Masalti v. State of U.P. [(1964) 8 SCR 133]*, Darya Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1964) 3 SCR 397]*, Harbans Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana [2005 CriLJ 2199]* and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 14 SCC 150]* to highlight the importance of carefully scrutinizing the evidence of related witnesses, but not discarding it solely on that basis.

The Court also referred to Hari Shanker Vs. State of U.P. [(1996) 9 SCC 40]*, Ujjagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 90]*, State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal & Ors. [(2008) 16 SCC 73]* and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 12 SCC 91]* to discuss the relevance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence. The Court also cited Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 1012]* to highlight the importance of considering material contradictions in witness statements.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of bloodstains on the weapons, and the discrepancies between the ocular and medical evidence. The Court also noted the improvements made by the prosecution witnesses from the time of lodging the FIR to their examination in court. The Court was also critical of the High Court’s misinterpretation of the facts, particularly regarding the time of the incident and the availability of light. The court also noted that the trial court had conducted a full fledged trial and had cogently reasoned its decision to acquit the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

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

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the findings of the trial court?

Issue 2: Whether there were compelling reasons for the High Court to set aside the order of acquittal?

Key Takeaways

• Standard for Reversal: The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s approach was manifestly illegal or perverse.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence can weaken their case.
• Importance of Independent Witnesses: The absence of independent witnesses can be a significant factor in weakening the prosecution’s case, especially when the primary witnesses are related to each other.
• Corroboration of Evidence: Medical evidence must corroborate the ocular evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
• Motive: While motive can play a role in circumstantial evidence cases, the absence of a proven motive alone cannot be the sole reason to dislodge the prosecution’s case.
• Scrutiny of Witness Statements: Courts must carefully scrutinize witness statements, especially when there are improvements or contradictions from the time of the FIR to the court testimony.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s acquittal for the appellants. The bail bonds of the appellants were discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s approach was manifestly illegal or perverse. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any significant inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence can weaken their case. There is no change in the previous position of the law but the judgment emphasizes the importance of proper appreciation of evidence by the appellate courts in cases of appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhaskarrao & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra highlights the importance of a thorough and unbiased assessment of evidence in criminal cases. The Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal and the numerous flaws in the prosecution’s case. This judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt should benefit the accused. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when reversing acquittals and to ensure that such reversals are based on compelling reasons and substantial grounds.