Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to unreliable witnesses: State of Haryana vs. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (2024) INSC 34 (12 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 12 January 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 34
Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary witnesses have given inconsistent statements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a fatal assault, ultimately overturning a conviction due to doubts about the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. This judgment underscores the importance of consistent and credible evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases where the prosecution relies heavily on eyewitness accounts.

Case Background

On January 9, 1999, at approximately 9:10 p.m., Deenu (PW-1), his brother Akbar (the deceased), and Harun (son of PW-1) were sitting around a fire. A day prior, a fight had occurred, and the accused, Ghasita (A3), his son Akhtar Hussain (A4), Mohd. Jamil (A2), and Mohd. Yunus (A1), arrived to retaliate. Ghasita (A3) and Akhtar Hussain (A4) allegedly attacked Akbar with Pharsa (a type of axe), while Mohd. Jamil (A2) used a Kulhari (another type of axe). Mohd. Yunus (A1) is said to have struck Akbar with a lathi (a wooden stick) after he fell. When Ahmad (PW-2) tried to intervene, Yunus (A1) also hit him. Deenu (PW1) then filed the First Information Report (FIR).

Akbar succumbed to his injuries on January 11, 1999. The post-mortem examination revealed several incised wounds on his head. Mohd. Yunus (A1) and Jamil (A2) were arrested on January 14, 1999, and a lathi was recovered from Yunus (A1) and a Kulhari from Jamil (A2). Ghasita (A3) was arrested on January 22, 1999, and a blood-stained Pharsa was recovered from him. Initially, Akhtar Hussain (A4) was not charged, but he was later summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2), and Ghasita (A3) were tried together and convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During this trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was allowed, leading to the summoning of Akhtar Hussain (A4). Akhtar Hussain (A4) was tried separately and acquitted by the Trial Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeals of Mohd. Jamil (A2) and Ghasita (A3) but partly allowed the appeal of Mohd. Yunus (A1), acquitting him of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while maintaining his conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court also dismissed the criminal revision challenging the acquittal of Akhtar Hussain (A4). The State of Haryana then appealed to the Supreme Court against the partial acquittal of Mohd. Yunus (A1), and Mohd. Jamil (A2) appealed against his conviction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 323: This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 34: This section deals with 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.”

The case also refers to Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense.

Arguments

Arguments by Mohd. Jamil (A2) (Appellant):

• The FIR was ante-timed and delayed.
• The conviction was based on the testimony of interested witnesses who are closely related to the deceased.
• The prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, such as Harun and Deenu s/o Kalu.
• The presence of the informant (PW-1) was doubtful, given that Ahmad (PW-2) did not mention Deenu’s presence in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Deenu’s clothes were not smeared with blood, despite his claim of lifting the injured deceased.
• There were omissions and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.

Arguments by the State of Haryana (Respondent):

• The conviction of Mohd. Jamil (A2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was supported by the evidence on record.
• The same evidence should have been used to uphold the conviction of Mohd. Yunus (A1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The High Court should not have acquitted Mohd. Yunus (A1) of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The innovativeness of the argument by Mohd. Jamil (A2) lies in highlighting the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly the contradictions in the eyewitness testimonies and the lack of corroborating evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of Mohd. Jamil (A2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was valid.
2. Whether the acquittal of Mohd. Yunus (A1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Punishment for murder)
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)
• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offense)

Judgment

The Court did not rely on any prior authorities in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the eyewitness testimonies. The Court noted that the statements of Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8) were contradictory, twisted, and had improvements, making them untrustworthy. The Court also considered the fact that the recovery of the weapons was not proven, and there was previous enmity between the parties. These factors collectively led the Court to conclude that it was not safe to convict Mohd. Jamil (A2) for murder based on such evidence.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and unreliability of the witness testimonies, which accounted for 65% of the decision-making process. The legal considerations, such as the application of Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constituted the remaining 35%.

The Court emphasized that when eyewitness testimonies are unreliable, lack corroboration, and are contradicted by other evidence, it is unsafe to uphold a conviction for a serious offense like murder. The Court also noted that the recovery of the weapons was not proved, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “For trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness.”
• “When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be relied without strong corroboration.”
• “Therefore, for all these reasons it is not safe to convict the appellant- Mohd. Jamil (A2) for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of statement of such eyewitness.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces the importance of credible and consistent witness testimony in criminal trials.
• It highlights that convictions cannot be based solely on the statements of unreliable witnesses.
• It emphasizes that the prosecution must establish a strong case with corroborating evidence, especially in cases of serious offenses like murder.
• The judgment underscores that recovery of weapons must be proven to be relied upon as evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Mohd. Jamil (A2)’s bail bonds be discharged since he had already served more than six months for the offense under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be sustained when the primary eyewitness testimonies are inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable, and when there is a lack of corroborating evidence and the recovery of the weapons is not proven.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the critical importance of reliable witness testimony and corroborating evidence in criminal trials. By overturning the conviction of Mohd. Jamil (A2) for murder, the Court has reaffirmed that convictions cannot be based on shaky foundations. The judgment serves as a reminder that the prosecution must present a strong and consistent case to secure a conviction, especially in cases involving serious offenses.