Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: Dibakar Nunia vs. State of Assam (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 30 August 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 743

Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitnesses’ behavior after the crime is inconsistent with normal human conduct? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Dibakar Nunia & Anr. vs. The State of Assam. The court examined whether the testimony of the deceased’s parents, who allegedly witnessed the murder but then went home to eat and sleep, could be considered reliable. This judgment highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases and the need for a thorough examination of witness behavior.

The bench comprised of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi who delivered the judgement.

Case Background

On October 1, 1999, Amrit Tanti (PW-1) filed a First Information Report (F.I.R.) at the Ghungoor Police Outpost. He stated that on the previous night, around 12:30 AM, he found his younger brother, Amar Tanti, lying injured near the Congress Party’s election office. Amrit Tanti had been returning from an election campaign and identified his brother by an electric lamp. He later learned from his parents that Dibakar and Babul (the appellants) had assaulted Amar in the evening. This led to the registration of Silchar P.S. Case No. 1362 of 1999 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The investigation was conducted by Dipen Paul (PW-10). An inquest was performed on the body, which was then sent for postmortem. Statements from witnesses were recorded, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants. The case was committed to the Sessions Court where the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution presented ten witnesses, while the appellants did not present any defense witnesses. The appellants’ statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court convicted the appellants.

The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimonies of Sukhram (PW-2), the deceased’s father, and Menoka Tati (PW-3), the deceased’s step-mother, who claimed to be eyewitnesses.

Sukhram (PW-2) testified that he and his wife were returning from Silchar around 8 PM when he heard his son’s cries near Shilcoorie market. He saw Babul overpowering Amar while Dibakar assaulted him with a dao (a type of knife). He claimed to have fallen unconscious upon seeing his son’s injuries and regained consciousness later that night. He identified both accused in the street light and reported the incident to his son (PW-1) that night.

Menoka Tati (PW-3) corroborated her husband’s account, stating that they heard Amar crying for help around 7-8 PM. She saw Babul holding Amar while Dibakar attacked him with a dao. She stated she was about 16 feet away and could identify the accused in the electric light. She also mentioned that her husband fell unconscious and she took him home. She reported the incident to PW-1 around 3 AM.

Dr. Homeswar Sharma (PW-7) conducted the postmortem and detailed the injuries, including incised wounds on the neck, temple, and shoulder, and a punctured wound on the thorax.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, Cachar, Silchar, Assam, convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The Trial Court relied heavily on the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, the parents of the deceased, who claimed to be eyewitnesses. The court found no reason to disbelieve their testimony and noted that the defense did not suggest any prior enmity between the witnesses and the accused. The court also noted that the presence of many people at the market during the incident indicated sufficient light for clear identification of the accused.

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court acknowledged the unusual conduct of PW-2 and PW-3, who went home, ate, and slept after witnessing the assault on their son. However, the High Court justified this conduct by referencing the defense’s suggestion that the deceased was often intoxicated and involved in quarrels. The High Court concluded that the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 were acceptable and reliable.

Legal Framework

The appellants were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The charge also included Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to 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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Sessions Court and the High Court had overlooked significant shortcomings in the prosecution’s case and proceeded on irrelevant considerations.
• They contended that the conviction was primarily based on the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, which were unreliable due to serious contradictions and inherent improbabilities.
• The appellants emphasized the unnatural conduct of PW-2 and PW-3, who allegedly went home, ate, and slept after witnessing their son’s assault, without seeking immediate help.
• They argued that the High Court’s justification of this unnatural conduct, based on the deceased’s alleged involvement in previous quarrels, was insufficient.
• The appellants pointed out that none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s case, further undermining the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative.
• They also highlighted the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed by PW-1, the brother of the deceased, at 10 a.m. on the day after the incident, without any proper explanation.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the impugned judgment and order, submitting that the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 were not entirely unreliable.
• The State argued that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, based on the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, did not warrant any interference.
• The State contended that the totality of circumstances supported the conviction of the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, based on the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, were sustainable, given the unnatural conduct of the said witnesses and the lack of support from independent witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka: (2009) Cri. L.J. 2422 (SC) – This case was cited to emphasize that a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense, and that the benefit of such doubt must be given to the accused.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The case of Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka: (2009) Cri. L.J. 2422 (SC)* was used by the Court to emphasize the principle that a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense. The Court highlighted that when a reasonable doubt arises, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The unnatural conduct of PW-2 and PW-3, who, after witnessing the assault on their son, went home, ate, and slept without seeking immediate medical help or informing the authorities.
• The lack of corroboration from any independent witnesses, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which raised doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution’s narrative.
• The principle of reasonable doubt, which requires that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any fair doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the factual inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s case, particularly the conduct of the eyewitnesses. The legal principle of reasonable doubt was applied to the facts, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the parents were traumatized, but rejected it because their actions of going home, eating and sleeping were not consistent with normal human behavior. The Court also considered the High Court’s justification that the deceased was involved in quarrels, but found it insufficient to explain the parents’ conduct.

The final decision was reached by applying the principle of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the unreliable nature of the eyewitness testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence.

The Supreme Court stated, “After having examined the present matter in its totality, we are impelled to consider interference herein because the findings as returned by the Trial Court and the High Court apparently suffer from an entirely erroneous approach leading to miscarriage of justice.”

The Court further noted, “Taking all the circumstances into account, in our view, testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 could not have been accepted as that of eye-witnesses to the incident from any standpoint.”

The Court also emphasized, “It remains trite that in such a criminal case, the prosecution is expected to prove its case and to substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench comprised of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi who delivered the unanimous judgement.

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, especially from close relatives, must be critically evaluated, particularly if their behavior after the crime is unnatural or inconsistent with normal human conduct.
• The prosecution must present a coherent and believable narrative, supported by credible evidence. Unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and lack of corroborating independent witnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The principle of reasonable doubt remains paramount in criminal cases, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• This judgment underscores the importance of a fair and thorough trial process, where the courts must look beyond the surface and examine the credibility of evidence presented.
• The judgment may lead to a more cautious approach by lower courts when evaluating eyewitness testimonies, especially in cases where the witnesses’ behavior raises questions about their credibility.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the impugned judgments and orders of the Gauhati High Court and the Sessions Court, Cachar at Silchar, be set aside, and the appellants be acquitted. The Court further directed that if the appellants were in custody, they should be released immediately.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially close relatives, must be critically evaluated, and if their conduct after witnessing the crime is unnatural or inconsistent with normal human behavior, their testimony cannot be relied upon for conviction. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any fair doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. This judgment reinforces the principle of reasonable doubt and highlights the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials.

Conclusion

In Dibakar Nunia & Anr. vs. The State of Assam, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellants, emphasizing that the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 were unreliable due to their unnatural conduct after witnessing the crime. The Court highlighted the lack of corroborating evidence and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. This judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal trials, ensuring that convictions are based on solid and believable evidence.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Eyewitness Testimony
  • Reasonable Doubt
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Dibakar Nunia vs. State of Assam case?

A: The main issue was whether the testimony of eyewitnesses, who acted unnaturally after witnessing a crime, could be considered reliable for conviction in a murder case.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the conviction in this case?

A: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the eyewitnesses, the parents of the deceased, acted unnaturally by going home, eating, and sleeping after witnessing the assault. Their testimony was deemed unreliable, and there was a lack of corroborating evidence.

Q: What is the principle of “reasonable doubt” in criminal law?

A: The principle of reasonable doubt means that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any fair doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. It is not a mere possible doubt but a doubt based on reason and common sense.

Q: What does Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deal with?

A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the punishment for murder, which can be death or imprisonment for life, along with a fine.

Q: What does Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deal with?

A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states that each person is liable for the act as if it were done by him alone.

Q: What should you do if you witness a crime?

A: If you witness a crime, you should immediately inform the police and cooperate with the investigation. It is important to provide accurate and truthful information.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for future cases?

A: This judgment emphasizes the need for courts to critically evaluate eyewitness testimonies, especially when the witness’s behavior is inconsistent with normal human conduct. It reinforces the importance of credible evidence and the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal trials.