Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to flawed identification: Mohd. Rijwan vs. State of Haryana (2023) INSC 911 (13 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 911
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a conviction for murder stand when the key eyewitness identification is questionable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue in the case of Mohd. Rijwan vs. State of Haryana. The Court overturned the conviction, highlighting the importance of proper identification procedures and the need for conclusive evidence in criminal trials. This case underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be based on weak or doubtful evidence.

Case Background

The case began with a missing person complaint filed by Chander Bhushan (PW-10) on 22nd February 2004, regarding his brother, Vidya Sagar, who had gone missing on 17th February 2004. The prosecution alleged that on 17th February 2004, the deceased, Vidya Sagar, and the appellant, Mohd. Rijwan, consumed liquor together. Following this, the appellant and the deceased were seen together on a motorcycle, with the appellant driving and the deceased as a pillion rider. The motorcycle was involved in a minor accident where Pyare Lal (PW-6) suffered minor injuries. The matter was settled with the appellant paying Rs. 50 to PW-6 for medicines. The prosecution further claimed that after this incident, the appellant and two others assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death, and subsequently buried his body near a hand pump. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, namely, the theory of “last seen together” and the recovery of the deceased’s body based on the appellant’s disclosure.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and three years rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which ultimately overturned the conviction.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the offense of causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section discusses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

The prosecution’s main arguments were based on two key circumstances:

• Last Seen Together: The prosecution argued that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, Vidya Sagar, on 17th February 2004, before his disappearance. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Pyare Lal (PW-6) who stated that the appellant and the deceased were together on a motorcycle.
• Recovery of the Body: The prosecution argued that the deceased’s body was recovered based on a disclosure statement made by the appellant, linking him to the crime.

The defense countered these arguments by highlighting:

• Flawed Identification: The defense argued that the identification of the appellant by PW-6 was not reliable. PW-6 admitted that he did not know the appellant before the incident and that he was shown the appellant in the Superintendent of Police’s office before identifying him in court. The defense argued that this procedure compromised the reliability of the identification.
• Contradictory Evidence: The defense pointed out contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Radhey Shyam (PW-9) stated that the appellant was at his work site around 4:00 PM on 17th February 2004, which contradicts the testimony of PW-6 that the appellant was involved in the accident at the same time.
• Non-Examination of Key Witness: The defense highlighted that Hari Chand Sharma, who was present at the scene of the accident according to PW-6, was not examined as a witness. The prosecution did not provide any reason for withholding this important witness.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized the importance of a fair identification process and the need for reliable evidence in criminal trials.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the identification of the appellant by PW-6 was compromised because he was shown the appellant in the Superintendent of Police’s office before identifying him in court. The Court also highlighted the contradiction in the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-9, and the non-examination of Hari Chand Sharma, a crucial witness. The Court stated, “Thus, the important circumstance of the last seen together has not been established. Hence, the first circumstance in the chain of circumstances has not been established.” The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was based on weak evidence and that the appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court also observed, “The identification of the accused in the test identification parade by the eyewitness, though not conclusive, may, in a given case, give credence to the identification of the accused before the Court by the eyewitness. However, the failure to conduct a test identification parade is not always fatal. It all depends on the facts of each case.”

The Supreme Court further noted, “Thus, the identification of the appellant by PW-6 in the court is not free from reasonable doubt. It becomes very doubtful as the accused was shown to the witness in the office of the Superintendent of Police, only with a view to see that he identifies the accused in the court. This procedure is not known to law.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Flawed Identification Process: The fact that PW-6 was shown the appellant in the Superintendent of Police’s office before identifying him in court raised serious doubts about the reliability of his identification.
• Contradictory Evidence: The conflicting testimonies of PW-6 and PW-9 regarding the appellant’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version of events.
• Non-Examination of Key Witness: The prosecution’s failure to examine Hari Chand Sharma, a witness to the “last seen together” incident, weakened their case.
• Lack of Corroborating Evidence: The court found that the recovery of the body, in the absence of reliable “last seen together” evidence, was not sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

✓ Proper identification procedures are crucial in criminal trials. Showing a witness the accused before a formal identification process can compromise the reliability of the identification.
✓ The prosecution must present a coherent and consistent case. Contradictions in witness testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.
✓ The non-examination of key witnesses without a valid reason can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case.
✓ A conviction cannot be based on weak or doubtful evidence. The prosecution must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when the identification of the accused is unreliable, and the prosecution fails to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the importance of proper identification procedures and the need for corroborating evidence. It also highlights that the prosecution must present a coherent and consistent case, and that the non-examination of key witnesses without a valid reason can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case. The judgment emphasizes the principle that a conviction cannot be based on weak or doubtful evidence.

Conclusion

In the case of Mohd. Rijwan vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant, highlighting the importance of a fair identification process and the need for conclusive evidence in criminal trials. The Court’s decision emphasizes that convictions cannot be based on weak or doubtful evidence and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and ensuring that justice is served.