Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Flawed Investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 12th January 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 252

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

Can a conviction be sustained when the investigation is flawed and the dying declaration is doubtful? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the conviction of the appellants. The court found serious discrepancies in the investigation and the evidence presented, particularly regarding the dying declaration and the conduct of the investigating officer. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and M.M. Sundresh, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case revolves around a prior enmity between the appellants and the deceased, stemming from a water dispute and the deceased’s purchase of properties in the appellants’ village. On July 25, 1992, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the deceased, Hukum Singh, along with Kishori Kachi and Hakim Singh (P.W.12), were allegedly attacked by the appellants and their group while going to attend nature’s call. The attackers, armed with weapons, took the three individuals to their place. Bhogiram and Bhaggo Bai (P.W.18) who tried to intervene were also attacked. Hukum Singh died on July 28, 1992, three days after the incident. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on a statement made by Hukum Singh, recorded as the first information report (FIR), which was later treated as a dying declaration.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

  Deals with rioting, which is defined as an act of violence by an unlawful assembly. This section punishes those who are guilty of rioting with imprisonment and/or fine.

• Section 302 of the IPC:

  Defines the punishment for murder, which is typically life imprisonment or death penalty along with fine.

• Section 304 Part II of the IPC:

  Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable with imprisonment for a term, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 149 of the IPC:

  Addresses the concept of vicarious liability, holding members of an unlawful assembly responsible for offenses committed by any member in furtherance of the common object. It states that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

• Section 324 of the IPC:

  Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, punishable with imprisonment or fine or both.

• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

  Relates to the recording of the first information report (FIR) of a cognizable offense.

• Section 161 of the CrPC:

  Deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that there were three different first information reports (FIRs) as per the prosecution’s version, creating doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution’s case.
• They contended that the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were self-contradictory and inconsistent.
• The appellants highlighted that no witness had spoken about the recording of the Dehati Nalishi (FIR) as deposed by P.W.20, and the deceased Hukum Singh was in an unconscious state.
• They argued that the language used in Ex. P-28 (the FIR) indicated a legally trained mind and that the thumb impression of the deceased was not proved and its placement created serious doubt.
• The appellants pointed out that P.W.20 contradicted himself on various counts, did not disclose the name of the person who furnished the information, and suppressed the earlier version of the report.
• They emphasized that there was no explanation for not examining P.W.12, who was shown as an eye witness in Ex. P-28.
• The appellants submitted that 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 in the incident.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent acknowledged that there were reportedly three first information reports but submitted that two injured witnesses had spoken about the occurrence, one of whom was the author of the first information report.
• The respondent argued that the contradictions were minor in nature and should be disregarded.
• They contended that the statement made by the deceased Hukum Singh before P.W.20 should be treated as a dying declaration.
• The respondent submitted that both the lower courts concurrently found that the appellants committed the offense, and therefore, the evidence need not be re-appreciated by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues that the court addressed can be inferred from the judgment:

• Whether the statement of the deceased Hukum Singh can be treated as a valid dying declaration.
• Whether the investigation was fair and unbiased.
• Whether the prosecution’s evidence was reliable and consistent.
• Whether the conviction under Section 149 of the IPC was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellants, citing serious flaws in the investigation and the unreliability of the prosecution’s evidence. The court emphasized the following:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and Others [CITATION] to emphasize that only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of CrPC.
• The Court relied on Arvind Kumar @Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION] to emphasize the need for a fair investigation and the scope of Section 149 of IPC.
• The Court relied on Munnu Raja and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION] to highlight the importance of recording a dying declaration by a Magistrate.
• The Court relied on Gireesan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to emphasize the importance of a test identification parade.
• The Court relied on Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to emphasize the need for a higher degree of onus on the prosecution to prove that a person charged with an offense is liable to be punished for the offence committed by the others under section 149 IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Flawed Investigation: The court was critical of the investigating officer’s conduct, noting inconsistencies, suppression of evidence, and a lack of fairness. This was a major factor in the court’s decision to overturn the conviction.
• Unreliable Dying Declaration: The court found the alleged dying declaration to be unreliable due to doubts about the deceased’s consciousness and the manner in which it was recorded. The court noted that the thumb impression was obtained on a blank paper and filled up later.
• Inconsistent Witness Testimonies: The court noted significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, making their evidence unreliable.
• Lack of Test Identification Parade: The court emphasized the importance of a test identification parade, which was not conducted in this case, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
• Doubtful Application of Section 149 IPC: The court found that the charge under Section 149 of the IPC was not justified due to the lack of clarity on the common object and the involvement of a large number of unidentified persons.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction in Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) underscores the critical importance of a fair and unbiased investigation in criminal cases. The judgment serves as a reminder of the following key principles:

• Reliability of Dying Declarations: Dying declarations must be recorded carefully and should not be relied upon if there are doubts about the deceased’s state of mind or the manner in which the statement was recorded.
• Fair Investigation: Investigating officers must act impartially and not suppress evidence. Contradictions and inconsistencies in the investigation can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Consistent Witness Testimonies: Witness testimonies should be consistent and reliable. Contradictions and delayed identification of the accused can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Importance of Test Identification Parade: Test identification parades are crucial for establishing the identity of the accused, especially in cases where the accused are not well-known to the witnesses.
• Application of Section 149 IPC: The charge under Section 149 of the IPC requires a clear common object and the identification of all persons involved.

This case emphasizes that the legal system must ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence and a fair investigation. The case also serves as a warning against relying on flawed investigations and unreliable evidence to secure convictions.