Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 699
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitness’s testimony is inconsistent and doubtful? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case where the conviction was solely based on the testimony of the deceased’s father. The court, in this judgment, critically evaluated the reliability of the witness and ultimately acquitted the accused, highlighting the importance of trustworthy evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Dharmendra, who was found dead in Meghdoot Garden in Indore on August 2, 1998. The prosecution’s case was that the appellants, Vijay, Babbu @ Nandkishore, and Mahesh, stabbed Dharmendra to death. The primary witness was Prem Narain (PW-5), the deceased’s father, who claimed to have seen the appellants attacking his son. The appellants were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 2, 1998 | Dharmendra was found dead in Meghdoot Garden, Indore. |
| August 2, 1998 | Prem Narain (PW-5) filed a Dehati Report stating that he saw the accused stabbing his son. |
| August 2, 1998 | First Information Report (FIR) vide Crime No. 493 of 1998 was registered. |
| 1998 | The accused were arrested and the clothes along with the murder weapons were seized at their instance. |
| 1998 | Chargesheet filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. |
| 1998 | Case committed to the Sessions Court, which forwarded it to the Trial Court. |
| 1999 | Charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. |
| April 19, 1999 | Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 IPC. |
| September 16, 2008 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the Trial Court’s conviction. |
| January 11, 2023 | Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld this conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the conviction was based solely on the unreliable testimony of Prem Narain (PW-5).
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 302 of the IPC 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 IPC 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.”
The Supreme Court also considered the principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, provided that the witness is found to be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- The appellants argued that the conviction was solely based on the testimony of Prem Narain (PW-5), the father of the deceased.
- They contended that Prem Narain’s testimony was full of contradictions and therefore unreliable.
- It was submitted that the previous enmity between the families could have led to false implication of the accused.
Arguments by the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh):
- The State argued that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of PW-5 if the court finds the witness to be reliable.
- It was submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court had found PW-5’s testimony to be reliable, and therefore, no interference was warranted.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by the Appellants | Sub-Submissions by the Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of PW-5’s Testimony |
✓ Testimony full of contradictions. ✓ Sole testimony cannot be the basis of conviction. ✓ Previous enmity raises doubts about the veracity of the testimony. |
✓ Testimony was found reliable by lower courts. ✓ Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a reliable witness. |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument focused on the contradictions in the sole witness’s testimony, highlighting the potential for false implication due to prior enmity, which was a critical point in overturning the conviction.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the conviction of the appellants based solely on the testimony of Prem Narain (PW-5) was sustainable given the contradictions and doubts in his testimony.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction based solely on PW-5’s testimony was sustainable? | Not Sustainable | The Court found PW-5’s testimony to be unreliable due to material contradictions and doubts about his presence at the scene of the crime. The court also noted the previous enmity between the families, which raised the possibility of false implication. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, but emphasized that such testimony must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. The court did not specifically cite any case laws or legal provisions in the judgment.
| Authority | How it was considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness | The Court acknowledged this principle but emphasized that the witness’s testimony must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. |
| Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court considered this section to determine the punishment for murder. |
| Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court considered this section to determine the liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants: PW-5’s testimony is unreliable due to contradictions. | The Court agreed, noting material contradictions and doubts about PW-5’s presence at the scene. |
| Appellants: Previous enmity could have led to false implication. | The Court acknowledged this possibility, further doubting the credibility of PW-5’s testimony. |
| Respondent: Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a reliable witness. | The Court agreed with the principle but found PW-5’s testimony not to be reliable or trustworthy. |
| Respondent: Lower courts found PW-5’s testimony reliable. | The Supreme Court disagreed, overturning the lower courts’ findings. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness was acknowledged but was not applied in this case as the court found that the testimony of the witness was not trustworthy.
- The Court considered Section 302 of the IPC for the punishment of murder and Section 34 of the IPC for the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, but ultimately did not apply these sections to convict the accused due to lack of reliable evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of reliability in the testimony of Prem Narain (PW-5). The court noted several inconsistencies in his statements and raised doubts about his presence at the scene of the crime. The previous enmity between the families also played a significant role in the court’s decision, as it highlighted the possibility of false implication. The court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, the witness must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent, which was not the case here.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Contradictions in PW-5’s testimony | 40% |
| Doubt about PW-5’s presence at the scene | 30% |
| Previous enmity between families | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on the following logical steps:
The court considered the possibility that PW-5 might have falsely implicated the appellants due to previous enmity. The court also noted that PW-5’s testimony was inconsistent regarding his reasons for being in the garden and his ability to identify the assailants in the dark. The court ultimately concluded that the evidence did not inspire confidence and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The court’s reasoning is encapsulated in the following quotes:
- “No doubt, that the conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness. However, for resting the conviction on the basis of such testimony, the evidence of such a witness has to be found to be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent.”
- “From the tenor of the evidence, it is doubtful, as to whether he has really witnessed the alleged incident or not. Can it be a mere coincidence that Prem Narain (PW- 5) goes to the Meghdoot Garden to search for his younger son Dharmender and at the same time, he finds the appellants assailing the deceased and thereafter run away?”
- “We do not find that the evidence of Prem Narain (PW- 5) is of such a quality that would inspire confidence in the Court.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed that the conviction could not be sustained based on the available evidence.
The implications of this judgment are that it reinforces the principle that a conviction cannot be based on unreliable testimony, even if it is from a single witness. It also highlights the importance of considering the possibility of false implication due to previous enmity.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness if that testimony is not wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent.
- Previous enmity between parties can raise doubts about the veracity of a witness’s testimony and the possibility of false implication.
- Courts must critically evaluate the evidence presented and ensure that it inspires confidence before upholding a conviction.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of thorough investigation and reliable evidence in criminal trials.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be acquitted of all charges and that their bail bonds be discharged.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness if the testimony is found to be unreliable, contradictory, and doubtful. This case reinforces the existing legal principle that the testimony of a sole witness must be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent to form the basis of a conviction. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction in Vijay and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials. By acquitting the appellants, the court has reaffirmed that a conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of unreliable testimony, even if it is from a single witness. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the need for thorough investigation and critical evaluation of evidence in the pursuit of justice.