Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak evidence: Chunthuram vs. State of Chhattisgarh (29 October 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2020
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Krishna Murari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the evidence is weak and circumstantial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had upheld a murder conviction based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the conviction, highlighting the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases. The judgment was authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Laxman, who was allegedly assaulted by Chunthuram and Jagan Ram on 14 June 2001, around 7:00 PM. Laxman was returning from the Tamta market to his village, Pandripani, when the assault occurred. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Mahtoram (PW1), Laxman’s father. He stated that his grandson, Santram, informed him that Chunthuram and Jagan Ram had killed Laxman and concealed his body in a pit. Mahtoram went to the location and found his son’s body with injuries. The FIR also mentioned a land dispute between the accused and the victim, and that Laxman was charged with the murder of Sildhar, the brother of the accused, as potential motives for the crime.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both Chunthuram and Jagan Ram under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each. They were also convicted under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with a sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each. In appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted Jagan Ram based on the testimony of Bhagat Ram (PW-4), who could not identify the second person at the scene of the crime. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of Chunthuram, relying on the same eyewitness testimony and other evidence.

Legal Framework

The case involves 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 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.”
• Section 201: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. It states, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished…”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Chunthuram):

• The weapons of assault recovered from the appellant’s house were not linked to the crime.
• The identification of the lungi by Filim Sai (PW-3) was not reliable.
• The sole eyewitness, Bhagat Ram (PW-4), had poor eyesight and hearing, making his testimony unreliable. The incident occurred on a cloudy evening, further reducing his visibility.
• The land dispute, cited as a motive, was resolved more than two years prior to the incident, and the murder of Sildhar was allegedly related to that dispute.
• The simple injuries found on the appellant could have been caused by thorny shrubs, as admitted by Doctor P. Sutharu (PW-7).

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh):

• The appellant had a motive for the crime due to the land dispute and the fact that the deceased was tried for the murder of the appellant’s brother.
• The weapons of assault were recovered from the place pointed out by the accused.
• The eyewitness, Bhagat Ram (PW-4), heard the deceased cry out and saw him being assaulted by the appellant and another person.
• The prosecution had successfully established motive, recovery of murder weapons, and eyewitness testimony, among other related evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the following issues were addressed in the judgment:

1. Whether the recovered weapons were sufficiently linked to the crime.
2. Whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the testimony of Filim Sai (PW-3) were reliable in establishing the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime.
3. Whether the testimony of Bhagat Ram (PW-4) could be considered a reliable eyewitness account.
4. Whether the prosecution had established a sufficient motive for the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited Musheer Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748* to emphasize that identification tests are not substantive evidence and are only for corroboration.
• The Court cited Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs. The State of Bombay (1955) 1 SCR 903* to highlight that identifications held in police presence are inadmissible under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The Court cited Amar Singh v. the State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 826* to underscore that eyewitness testimony which is inconsistent with ordinary human conduct is unreliable.
• The Court cited Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu* to state that concurrent findings of guilt can be set aside if the prosecution story is highly improbable and inconsistent with ordinary human nature.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case, particularly with regard to the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the identification of the accused, and the link between the recovered weapons and the crime. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court’s final decision was based on the principle that if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a fundamental requirement in criminal law.

The Court’s reasoning included the following points:

• The weapons of assault were not linked to the crime. The doctor’s testimony and the absence of a chemical analyst report weakened the prosecution’s case.
• The Test Identification Parade (TIP) was flawed due to the presence of the police during the exercise, and the identification of the lungi was unreliable.
• The sole eyewitness, Bhagat Ram (PW-4), had poor eyesight and hearing, and his conduct was unnatural. His testimony was, therefore, unreliable.
• The motive for the crime was not sufficiently established. The land dispute was resolved long ago, and there was no immediate motive for the crime.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The alleged weapons of assault recovered on the basis of statement of the accused could be a key evidence to support the prosecution, but unfortunately, the recovered articles were never linked to the crime.”

“The infirmities in the conduct of the Test Identification Parade would next bear scrutiny. The major flaw in the exercise here was the presence of the police during the exercise.”

“The witness here knew the victim, allegedly saw the fatal assault on the victim and yet kept quiet about the incident. If PW4 had the occasion to actually witness the assault, his reaction and conduct does not match upto ordinary reaction of a person who knew the deceased and his family. His testimony therefore deserves to be discarded.”

Key Takeaways

• Convictions in criminal cases must be based on solid and reliable evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.
• Eyewitness testimony must be carefully scrutinized, especially when the witness has limitations such as poor eyesight or hearing.
• Test Identification Parades (TIPs) must be conducted without police presence to avoid influencing the identification process.
• The prosecution must establish a clear link between the recovered evidence and the crime.
• Motive alone cannot be the basis of a conviction; there must be other credible evidence to support the charges.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of weak and unreliable evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of credible evidence, especially eyewitness testimony, and the need to establish a clear link between the recovered evidence and the crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of Chunthuram. The Court emphasized the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases and highlighted the flaws in the prosecution’s case, including the unreliable eyewitness testimony, flawed identification parade, and lack of linkage between the recovered weapons and the crime. This judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the prosecution and that convictions must be based on solid evidence, not mere suspicion.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony, Identification Parade, Burden of Proof, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Chunthuram vs. State of Chhattisgarh case?
A: The main issue was whether the conviction of Chunthuram for murder could be sustained based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision because the evidence was weak and unreliable. The eyewitness testimony was questionable, the Test Identification Parade was flawed, and the weapons were not linked to the crime.

Q: What is the importance of a Test Identification Parade (TIP)?
A: A TIP is used to identify a suspect in a crime. It must be conducted fairly, without police presence, to avoid influencing the identification process.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment emphasizes that convictions in criminal cases must be based on solid and reliable evidence. It highlights the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the need to establish a clear link between the recovered evidence and the crime.

Q: What does it mean when the court says the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
A: It means that the prosecution did not present enough convincing evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime. The evidence must be strong enough to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of a fair person.