Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence: Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 07 May 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 461

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the evidence is contradictory and the identification of the accused is doubtful? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted by lower courts based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, highlighting the importance of conclusive evidence in criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On November 23, 1997, at approximately 9:00 PM, a group of individuals, including the appellant Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh, gathered and began ploughing a disputed road with a tractor. This road was the subject of a pending civil suit (Regular Suit No. 131 of 1997) filed by the complainant, Somabhai Rupabhai (PW-3), against the appellant and another accused. The complainant and his family used this road for access. When they intervened to stop the ploughing, the accused allegedly used caste-based slurs. Fearing for their safety, the complainant and his family retreated to their homes nearby. Subsequently, the appellant and other accused, some armed with guns and sticks, returned. The appellant and another accused allegedly fired gunshots, resulting in the death of Somiben, wife of Hirabhai (PW-5), and injuries to Ramanbhai (PW-6) and Nandaben (PW-7). The accused then fled the scene.

The First Information Report (FIR) was filed on November 24, 1997, leading to charges against the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court examined several eyewitnesses, including the complainant (PW-3) and the injured witnesses (PWs 6 and 7), along with medical professionals. The trial court convicted the appellant and another accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (murder with common intention), Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (attempted murder with common intention), Section 25(c) of the Arms Act (possession of illegal arms), and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (atrocities against scheduled castes/tribes). The other accused were acquitted of all charges. The High Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 25(c) of the Arms Act, but acquitted him under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court also acquitted another accused, giving him the benefit of doubt. The State’s appeal against the acquittal of the other accused was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states: “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 25(c) of the Arms Act: Addresses the illegal possession of arms.
• Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Deals with offenses of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Doubtful Identification: The incident occurred at 9:00 PM in an agricultural field with no evidence of adequate lighting. The witnesses’ ability to identify the assailants was questionable due to the darkness. The appellant contended that there was no electric light in the vicinity, and the prosecution did not establish the presence of moonlight.

• Contradictory Statements: The complainant’s statements in the FIR and in court were inconsistent regarding who fired the gunshots. In the FIR, it was stated that both the appellant and another accused fired the shots, whereas in court, the complainant stated that the other accused fired all three shots.

• Lack of Weapon Evidence: The post-mortem report did not specify whether the injuries were caused by a rifle or a double-barrel gun. The prosecution’s case was that a rifle was recovered from the appellant and a double-barrel gun from another accused. However, the post-mortem report did not clarify which weapon caused the fatal injuries. The appellant argued that the recovery of weapons was not sufficiently corroborated.

• Hostile Witnesses: The panch witnesses for the recovery of weapons did not support the prosecution’s case. The appellant argued that the recovery of weapons was not sufficiently corroborated.

• Non-recovery of Bullet: The fired bullet was not recovered from the deceased, making it difficult for the ballistic expert to provide a definitive opinion on the weapon used.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Consistent Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution argued that the eyewitness accounts of the complainant and the injured witnesses were consistent and reliable.

• Motive: The prosecution highlighted the ongoing land dispute as a motive for the crime, which was considered by the lower courts.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141: The Supreme Court acknowledged the principle that it is slow to interfere with concurrent findings but emphasized that it would intervene when the appreciation of evidence is erroneous and findings are perverse.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence and significant doubts regarding the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Doubtful Identification: The absence of sufficient light at the crime scene raised serious questions about the witnesses’ ability to identify the assailants accurately.
• Contradictory Statements: The inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements regarding who fired the gunshots created doubt about the prosecution’s narrative.
• Unclear Weapon Evidence: The post-mortem report’s failure to specify the type of weapon that caused the fatal injuries weakened the link between the appellant and the crime.
• Lack of Corroboration: The hostile panch witnesses for weapon recovery and the non-recovery of the bullet further undermined the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence, with a slightly lower emphasis on legal principles, as reflected in the Fact:Law ratio.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the eyewitnesses were accurate despite the darkness, but rejected them due to the significant doubts raised by the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and when reasonable doubt exists, the benefit must be given to the accused.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, stating: “In our considered view, the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 cannot be sustained and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.” The Court concluded that “the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit has to be given to the accused.” The Court also noted that “the High Court has not appreciated the oral evidence, other evidence and the points raised by the appellant-accused No.1.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Importance of Evidence: Conclusive and consistent evidence is crucial for convictions, especially in criminal cases.
• Identification Reliability: Identification of accused persons must be reliable and not based on doubtful circumstances.
• Corroboration: Recovery of weapons and other evidence must be corroborated by independent sources.
• Benefit of Doubt: When reasonable doubt exists, the benefit must be given to the accused.

This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough and reliable investigation, emphasizing that convictions cannot be sustained based on weak or contradictory evidence. It reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant/accused No.1-Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when there is insufficient evidence, contradictory statements, doubtful identification, lack of corroboration, and uncertainty about the weapon used. This judgment reinforces the established principles of criminal law, particularly the need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the right of the accused to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of adhering to these principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence linking him to the crime. The judgment underscores the importance of reliable identification, consistent testimony, and corroborated evidence in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.