Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to unreliable witness testimony: Hanna vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 1 May 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 390

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a conviction be upheld when the primary witness’s testimony is inconsistent and appears to be influenced by the police? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a murder conviction. The court examined the reliability of witness statements that changed significantly after the witness was declared hostile and later recalled. This judgment highlights the importance of unbiased witness testimony and the potential for police influence in criminal trials. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 5th October 1995, where Pappu @ Har Narayan was allegedly murdered. Nanhi Bahu (PW-1), the mother of the deceased, initially claimed that the appellants, armed with various weapons, assaulted her son. However, during the trial, she was declared hostile after not supporting the prosecution’s case. Later, she was recalled and gave a statement implicating the appellants. The prosecution’s case was also supported by PW-3, the brother of the deceased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 323, 149, 147, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the witness testimonies.

Legal Framework

The case involves the application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the concept of unlawful assembly and the liability of members of such assembly for offences committed in furtherance of the common object.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that PW-1’s testimony was unreliable because she initially did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.
• They contended that PW-1’s later testimony, after being recalled, was given under police coercion.
• They highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in PW-3’s testimony, including his claim about witnessing the incident from his shop, which was not shown to exist in the site map.
• The appellants also argued that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the crime.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that PW-1, being a rustic woman who lost her son, was initially under threat from the accused.
• They submitted that PW-1’s recalled testimony should be considered as she was telling the truth.
• The State also argued that PW-1 was an injured eyewitness, and her testimony should not be discarded.
• They downplayed the inconsistencies in PW-3’s testimony and the site map, stating that the Investigation Officer might have made mistakes.

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 can be summarized as:

1. Whether the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 were reliable enough to sustain a conviction, given the inconsistencies, contradictions, and allegations of coercion.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issues:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered this section in the context of whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offense of murder.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered this section in the context of whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offense of voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered this section in the context of whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offense of unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered this section in the context of whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered this section in the context of whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offense of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the provisions of Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, but found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of murder.
• The Court considered the provisions of Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860, but found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of voluntarily causing hurt.
• The Court considered the provisions of Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, but found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of unlawful assembly.
• The Court considered the provisions of Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860, but found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of rioting.
• The Court considered the provisions of Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860, but found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of rioting with a deadly weapon.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3. The court noted that PW-1’s initial statement did not support the prosecution and that her later testimony appeared to be coerced by the police. The court also found that PW-3’s testimony was unreliable due to material omissions and contradictions. The fact that the prosecution did not examine Malti Bai, who claimed to be an eyewitness, also weighed against the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to do so, and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained. The court also noted that the police had likely influenced the testimony of PW-1, which raised serious concerns about the fairness of the trial.

“6. These 6 men are detained in jail since 1.5 years. I was having rivalry with them, so I mentioned their names. I had wrongly mentioned names of accused. I did not complain to anyone that accused are wrongly detained on my report.”

“7. My statement was recorded earlier in this District Court. I had stated correctly at that time. I was threatened after that. Accused had threatened me. I had given statement after that. Policemen had threatened me after that statement that why did you give wrong statement.”

“The only conclusion which can be drawn is that after recall, she was compelled by the Police to depose in a particular manner. The Trial Court and the High Court should have discarded her evidence recorded after the recall.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of reliable witness testimony in criminal trials.
• Testimonies that are inconsistent, contradictory, or appear to be influenced by the police should be viewed with skepticism.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused.
• The Court highlighted the potential for police coercion and the need for trial courts to be vigilant against such practices.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 468/2024 be immediately set at liberty. The bail bonds of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 467/2024 were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on unreliable witness testimony, especially when there is evidence of police coercion or material inconsistencies. This judgment reinforces the importance of fair trial principles and the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It also highlights the need for courts to be critical of witness testimonies that appear to be influenced by external factors. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellants, emphasizing the unreliability of the witness testimonies. The judgment underscores the importance of unbiased witness accounts and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s decision highlights the potential for police influence on witness statements and the necessity for trial courts to scrutinize such testimonies carefully.