Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence: Lal Mohammad Manjur Ansari vs. State of Gujarat (2024) INSC 475 (08 July 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 08 July 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 475
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the key evidence relies on a disputed extra-judicial confession and a dying declaration of the deceased, especially when crucial witnesses are not examined? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the conviction of the accused. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the judgment, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on September 6, 2004. The appellant, Lal Mohammad Manjur Ansari, was accused of murdering his roommate, Mohmed Akhtar Gafur Ansari. The prosecution alleged that a dispute over playing music led to an altercation, during which the appellant inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of several eyewitnesses (PW-3 to PW-9), an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to his employer (PW-19), and a dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased to PW-24.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a plea of juvenility. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conduct an inquiry into this plea. After the Trial Court determined that the appellant was not a juvenile at the time of the offense, the Supreme Court heard the appeal on its merits.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. The section states:
“302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Court also considered Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states:
“25. Confession to police officer not to be proved.—No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”

The court also considered Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with examination of witnesses by police.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court had incorrectly relied on statements made by hostile eyewitnesses, taking them out of context.
• The counsel pointed out that the testimony of these witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
• Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the appellant’s counsel highlighted that PW-19, the appellant’s employer, claimed the appellant called him at 3:30 p.m. on the day of the incident to confess to the murder. However, no investigation was conducted regarding the phone from which the call was made.
• Further, while PW-19 stated that he informed PSI Mishra of Limbayat Police Station about the confession and called him to the Central Bus Station, PSI Mishra was not examined as a witness.
• The counsel argued that the omission to examine PSI Mishra was fatal to the prosecution’s case, as PSI Mishra allegedly took the appellant into custody and produced him before PW-25, the Investigating Officer.
• The counsel contended that the prosecution’s version of events was doubtful and could not be believed.

State’s Submissions:

• The State’s counsel submitted that although the eyewitnesses were declared hostile, their testimony could not be entirely discarded.
• The counsel argued that the evidence of these witnesses established that the appellant and the deceased were staying together in the same room at the time of the murder.
• The State’s counsel highlighted the testimony of PW-4, who stated that she saw the appellant running from the lobby and the deceased in a heavily bleeding condition immediately after.
• PW-7’s evidence was also cited, where she heard shouts of “save, save” from the appellant’s room and saw the appellant cleaning blood stains from his shirt.
• The counsel argued that PW-19 was the appellant’s employer, making it natural for the appellant to confide in him. Therefore, there was no reason to discard his testimony regarding the extra-judicial confession.
• Similarly, the State argued that there was no reason to discard the testimony of PW-24, who testified that the deceased made a dying declaration stating that the appellant had murdered him.
• The State’s counsel concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts, which were based on a detailed analysis of the prosecution’s evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-19 was reliable and admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased to PW-24 was credible and could be used as evidence.
3. Whether the testimony of the hostile eyewitnesses could be relied upon to connect the appellant with the murder.
4. Whether the prosecution’s failure to examine PSI Mishra was fatal to its case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that confessions made to a police officer cannot be proven against the accused.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the basis of the conviction, but ultimately overturned the conviction due to lack of evidence.
• The Court used Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to rule that the alleged confession made by the appellant before PSI Mishra could not be used as evidence against him.
• The Court referred to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context of PW-19’s statement recorded by the police, highlighting the contradictions in his testimony.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found the extra-judicial confession and the dying declaration to be unreliable, and the testimony of the hostile witnesses insufficient to connect the appellant to the murder. The non-examination of a crucial witness, PSI Mishra, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that a conviction cannot be sustained on doubtful evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the unreliable testimonies and the lack of key witnesses, than by purely legal considerations.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented. The Court noted that the extra-judicial confession was made to an employer with whom the appellant did not have a close relationship, and the circumstances surrounding the confession were unnatural. The Court also highlighted the fact that the prosecution failed to investigate the phone call made by the appellant to PW-19. The dying declaration was deemed unreliable due to contradictions in the testimony of PW-24 and the fact that the deceased was unconscious when taken to the hospital.

The Court also emphasized that the prosecution failed to produce PSI Mishra, who was a crucial witness to the alleged extra-judicial confession and the manner in which the appellant was taken into custody. The Court noted that the arrest panchnama did not even mention that PSI Mishra had arrested the appellant. The Court stated that, “it is impossible to believe the testimony of PW­19 that he conveyed the appellant’s extra­judicial confession to PSI Mishra.”

The Court concluded that, “after having carefully perused the evidence of the hostile prosecution witnesses (PW­3 to PW­9), we find that there is nothing in the evidence which could be relied upon by the prosecution for connecting the appellant with the murder of the deceased.” The Court also noted that, “Apart from the fact that it is very difficult to believe that the appellant confessed before PW­19, the further part of the testimony of PW­19 makes his testimony extremely doubtful as the prosecution has withheld PSI Mishra from the Court.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. Both judges agreed on the final verdict.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of doubtful extra-judicial confessions and dying declarations, especially when crucial witnesses are not examined.
• The prosecution must thoroughly investigate all aspects of a case, including the circumstances surrounding confessions and the testimonies of key witnesses.
• The absence of a crucial witness, such as a police officer involved in the arrest and confession, can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Courts will scrutinize the evidence presented by the prosecution and will not uphold convictions based on unreliable or contradictory testimonies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty unless he was required to be detained in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for murder cannot be sustained when the prosecution’s case relies on unreliable extra-judicial confessions, dying declarations, and the testimony of hostile witnesses, especially when key witnesses are not examined. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that convictions cannot be based on doubtful or contradictory evidence.

Conclusion

In the case of Lal Mohammad Manjur Ansari vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases. The Court found that the prosecution failed to present reliable evidence to connect the appellant to the murder, highlighting the unreliability of the extra-judicial confession, the dying declaration, and the testimonies of hostile witnesses. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal trials and the need for thorough investigation and presentation of evidence by the prosecution.