Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence: Virendra vs. State of M.P. (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2018
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the prosecution’s evidence is inconsistent and unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the quality and credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution. This case highlights the importance of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the consequences of relying on questionable testimony. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case revolves around the alleged murder of Main Babu on April 27, 2001. The prosecution claimed that Main Babu was shot dead by three individuals: Baijnath, Virendra (the appellant), and Suresh, due to a long-standing property dispute, despite previous court verdicts favoring the accused. Baijnath, the father of Virendra and Suresh, passed away during the trial. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by PW14, the deceased’s father, at 8:30 AM, regarding an incident that occurred at 7:30 AM. The Investigating Officer, PW16, arrested the accused the following day and recovered firearms from Virendra and Suresh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Virendra and Suresh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. Suresh did not appeal his conviction. Virendra’s appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was unsuccessful, leading him to file a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The accused were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with punishment for murder and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—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.”

Arguments

The appellant, Virendra, argued that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. The key points of their argument included:

• The prosecution witnesses’ testimonies contradicted each other, particularly regarding the timing of the incident and the presence of key witnesses.
• The recovery of the firearm was not conducted as per the procedure established under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report had contradictions and was not adequately supported by the testimony of the officer who prepared it.
• The trial court and the High Court improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the defense.
• The evidence of the defense witnesses was not given due consideration.
• The star witness for the prosecution, PW15, had a questionable background and his testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses.

The State, on the other hand, contended that the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case were not sufficient to acquit the accused. The State argued that the evidence on record was adequate to implicate the appellant and that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence.

The State further submitted that the defective trial and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses would not absolve the accused of guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

✓ Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272*: The Court followed this precedent, reiterating that the testimony of a prosecution witness, not declared hostile, is binding on the prosecution.

✓ Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 3 SCC 538*: The Court followed this precedent, reiterating that the defense can rely on the evidence of prosecution witnesses who were not declared hostile, if their evidence supports the defense.

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the evidence of PW15, the star witness, could not be relied upon due to his questionable background and lack of corroboration. The Court also noted that the recovery of the firearm was not conducted as per the procedure established under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions within the prosecution’s evidence. The unreliability of the star witness, PW15, and the improper handling of evidence recovery were also significant factors. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that this burden was not met in this case. The Court also noted that the lower courts had improperly shifted the burden onto the defense.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the witness testimonies, the FSL report, and the procedural lapses in the investigation and trial. The Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear and consistent narrative of the events, which created reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt.

The ratio of fact to law in this case indicates that while the court considered the factual discrepancies, the legal principles of burden of proof and the reliability of evidence played a more significant role in their decision-making process.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The prosecution’s case was weakened by several inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of its witnesses.
• The star witness, PW15, was found to be unreliable due to his criminal background and the lack of corroboration of his testimony.
• The recovery of the firearm was not conducted as per the procedure established under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, raising doubts about its admissibility as evidence.
• The trial court and the High Court improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the defense, which is contrary to established legal principles.
• The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, the prosecution failed to do so.

The Court considered that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of PW15, whose credibility was severely undermined by his criminal history and the lack of corroboration from other witnesses. The Court also noted that PW15’s presence at the scene of the crime was not established and that his actions after the incident were inconsistent with that of a reliable witness.

The Court also took into account the fact that the recovery of the firearm was not conducted as per the procedure established under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court stated that the prosecution failed to provide a clear and consistent narrative of the events, and this failure created reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt.

The Court also noted that the trial court and the High Court had improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the defense, which is contrary to established legal principles. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and it emphasized that the prosecution must meet the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

The court quoted:
“Certainly, the evidence of PW15 cannot be relied upon as against the other prosecution witnesses themselves, which stood uncontroverted.”

The court also stated:
“The recovery having not been proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant, we have no hesitation in overturning the conviction rendered as we do believe that the prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant has committed the offence.”

The court further stated:
“Thus, the conviction rendered by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2001 as confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1367 of 2005 stands set aside and the appellant is set at liberty.”

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of a witness with a questionable background must be corroborated by other evidence.
• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the defense.
• Evidence recovery must be conducted as per the procedure established by law.
• Courts must thoroughly analyze all evidence, including defense evidence, before rendering a conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and ordered the release of the appellant, Virendra.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the courts must thoroughly analyze all evidence before rendering a conviction. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring the reliability of evidence in criminal trials. The ruling reinforces the principle that the prosecution must present a cohesive and credible case to secure a conviction.

Conclusion

In the case of Virendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant due to the lack of credible evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining high standards of evidence and procedure in criminal trials.