Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to unreliable eyewitness testimony: Amar Singh vs. State (2020) INSC 469

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 469

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., Krishna Murari, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a conviction for murder be upheld based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, especially when that witness’s conduct appears unnatural and inconsistent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, overturning a conviction in a case where the prosecution relied heavily on a single eyewitness whose account was deemed unreliable. This judgment highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the need to scrutinize eyewitness accounts for inconsistencies and unnatural behavior.

Case Background

On August 3, 1990, Devinder Singh @ Ladi was murdered in Sukhdev Market, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that Amar Singh (the appellant), Shiv Charan (who died during the appeal process), and Inderjeet Singh (the other appellant) attacked Devinder Singh with hockey sticks and a knife. The incident occurred when Devinder Singh, along with his brothers Parminder Singh (PW-1) and Amar Singh (PW-11), were walking towards a taxi stand. Parminder Singh claimed to have witnessed the attack, while Amar Singh and another witness, Sujan Singh (PW-5), later turned hostile.

The police investigation included seizing weapons, collecting blood samples, and recording witness statements. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Inderjeet Singh was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The incident was inherently improbable.
• The conduct of Parminder Singh (PW-1), the alleged eyewitness, was unnatural and did not inspire confidence, making his presence at the scene doubtful.
• Other eyewitnesses, Amar Singh (PW-11) and Sujan Singh (PW-5), turned hostile, and their cross-examination did not help the prosecution.
• Convicting the appellants based solely on the testimony of PW-1, whose conduct was unnatural, is unsafe without corroboration.
• There was an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and dispatching it to the jurisdictional magistrate.
• No effort was made to take the injured to a nearby clinic.
• The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) of the deceased was initially recorded as ‘unknown,’ casting doubt on the presence of the brothers at the hospital.
• The recovered knife had a blunt tip, making the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report unlikely.
• The appellants were falsely implicated due to a prior murder case where the deceased was an accused.

State’s Arguments:

• The two lower courts had recorded concurrent findings of guilt based on the reliable testimony of an eyewitness.
• There is no legal impediment to convicting based on the sole testimony of a single witness.
• The evidence of a hostile witness should not be discarded entirely; admissible parts can be relied upon.
• Conviction should not be assailed merely due to some lacuna in the investigation, especially when direct testimony is corroborated by medical evidence.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the conviction of the appellants based on the sole testimony of one eye witness, whose conduct was unnatural and inconsistent with the ordinary course of human nature making his presence at the site of incident extremely doubtful, is highly unsafe without corroboration from other piece of evidence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Laws:

• Sunil Kumar V/s State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367 – The Court referred to this case to emphasize that evidence must be weighed, not counted, and that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity.
• Kartarey and Ors. V/s State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 172 – This case was cited to stress the importance of eliciting the opinion of a medical witness, especially when dealing with forensic evidence like stab wounds. The Court noted that the weapon should be shown to the medical witness to determine if the injuries could have been caused by that weapon.
• Ishwar Singh V/s State of U.P., (1976) 4 SCC 355 – The Court reiterated the duty of the prosecution and the court to show the alleged weapon to the medical witness and seek their opinion.
• Mitter Sen and others V/s State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 723 – This case was used to emphasize that when there are variations in the prosecution case, the evidence of an eyewitness cannot be accepted at face value.
• Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 4 SCC 343 – The Court cited this case to support its decision to set aside concurrent findings of guilt when the prosecution story was found to be improbable and inconsistent with the ordinary course of human nature.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act – This section deals with punishment for using arms.
• Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – This section states that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.

Authority Consideration Table:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sunil Kumar V/s State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367*: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity, reinforcing the need for reliable testimony.
• Kartarey and Ors. V/s State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 172*: The Court cited this case to highlight the importance of obtaining a medical witness’s opinion on the weapon and injuries, which was not done in this case, thus weakening the prosecution’s case.
• Ishwar Singh V/s State of U.P., (1976) 4 SCC 355*: The Court reiterated the duty of the prosecution and the court to correlate the weapon with the injuries through medical testimony, which was not done in this case, thus weakening the prosecution’s case.
• Mitter Sen and others V/s State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 723*: The Court used this case to emphasize that eyewitness evidence cannot be accepted at face value when there are discrepancies, as was the case with the sole eyewitness in this case.
• Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 4 SCC 343*: The Court cited this case to support its decision to set aside concurrent findings of guilt when the prosecution story is improbable, as was found in this case.
• Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872: The Court acknowledged that a conviction can be based on a single witness, but only if the witness is wholly reliable, which was not the case here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Unnatural Conduct of Eyewitness: The court found the conduct of Parminder Singh (PW-1) to be unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behavior. His failure to try and save his brother, his lack of immediate action to seek medical help, and the discrepancies in the MLC all cast serious doubt on his presence at the scene.
• Lack of Corroboration: The other two eyewitnesses turned hostile, and there was no other reliable evidence to corroborate PW-1’s testimony. The court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on a single witness, that witness must be wholly reliable, which was not the case here.
• Discrepancies in Medical Evidence: The court noted the discrepancies between the injuries described in the post-mortem report and the blunt knife recovered, as well as the failure of the investigating officer to seek a medical opinion on whether the injuries could have been caused by the recovered weapon.
• Improbable Sequence of Events: The court found it improbable that the incident occurred within five minutes as claimed by PW-1, given the number and nature of injuries inflicted.

Sentiment Analysis:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the factual improbabilities and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, with legal principles playing a secondary role in the final outcome.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony: The judgment emphasizes that a conviction cannot be solely based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if that witness’s conduct is unnatural, inconsistent, or doubtful.
• Importance of Corroboration: The Court stressed the need for corroborating evidence when relying on a single eyewitness, especially when there are doubts about their credibility.
• Scrutiny of Medical Evidence: The judgment highlights the importance of correlating medical evidence with eyewitness accounts and ensuring that medical opinions are sought on the nature of injuries and the weapons used.
• Investigative Lapses: The Court noted that significant lapses in the investigation, such as failing to seek a medical opinion on the weapon, can weaken the prosecution’s case, especially when the eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
• Benefit of Doubt: The Court held that if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio of this case is that the testimony of a single eyewitness must be wholly reliable and consistent with natural human behavior to form the basis of a conviction. If there are doubts about the witness’s conduct, the testimony must be corroborated by other credible evidence, and any discrepancies with medical evidence or lapses in investigation must be thoroughly examined. This case reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment does not introduce a new legal principle, but it reinforces the existing principles regarding the evaluation of eyewitness testimony and the importance of corroborating evidence in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder that while a conviction can be based on a single witness, the witness must be credible, and their testimony must be consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellants, Amar Singh and Inderjeet Singh, in a murder case, citing serious doubts about the reliability of the sole eyewitness. The Court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence, the need to scrutinize eyewitness accounts for inconsistencies, and the significance of aligning medical evidence with the prosecution’s narrative. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.