Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Ravi Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 469

Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies that are inconsistent and unreliable? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the case of Ravi Mandal vs. State of Uttarakhand, where the court overturned the conviction of the accused, highlighting significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The court found that the testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent, their presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful, and the investigation process was flawed. This judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and thorough investigation in criminal cases.

Case Background

On November 1, 2001, Man Singh (PW-1), the father of Chhotu @ Surjeet (the deceased), discovered his son’s body in a forest near Government Inter College. He filed a First Information Report (FIR) at P.S. Lalkuan, Haldwani, at approximately 7:30 AM. In the FIR, he stated that on October 31, 2001, at around 9:00 PM, his son was with his friends Govind and Ravi Bangali (later identified as Ravi Mandal). Man Singh suspected that these individuals were responsible for his son’s death. Later, on November 10, 2001, Man Singh provided a written statement to the police, stating that Shabbir, along with Ravi and Mazhar Khan, were with the deceased on the night of the incident. He also mentioned that Babloo (PW-7) had initially misled him to name Govind.

During the investigation, the police arrested the two accused, Ravi Mandal and Shabbir. A 12-bore country-made pistol with one live cartridge was recovered from Shabbir, and a knife was recovered from Ravi Mandal. This led to separate cases against each of them under the Arms Act. Three charge sheets were filed, leading to three connected sessions trials.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court relied on the testimonies of Chandan Singh (PW-2) and Mahendra Khurana (PW-5) to conclude that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused near the forest where his body was found. The court also noted that Mahendra Khurana (PW-5) heard a gunshot soon after the deceased and the two accused entered the forest, and that the accused were seen exiting the forest without the deceased. The Trial Court also considered the FSL report, which stated that the empty cartridge found at the scene was fired from the pistol recovered from Shabbir. The Trial Court concluded that the accused had committed the murder and were guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Shabbir was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Ravi Mandal was convicted under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, finding the prosecution’s evidence reliable and corroborative.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses 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.”
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section relates to causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender. “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 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for certain offenses related to illegal possession of arms.
• Section 4/25 of the Arms Act: This section also deals with offenses related to illegal possession of arms.
• Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the procedure for proclamation for person absconding.

Arguments

Appellant Ravi Mandal’s Arguments:

• The testimony of the deceased being last seen with the accused is unreliable. Neither the father (PW-1) nor the mother (PW-3) saw the deceased with the accused. Babloo (PW-7) did not mention the presence of the accused with the deceased.
• Chandan Singh (PW-2) is not a reliable witness as he was not listed in the chargesheet and did not disclose the incident earlier. His presence at the spot is not adequately explained.
• Mahendra Khurana (PW-5) is also a chance witness, and his explanation for being at the spot is questionable.
• Hanuman Prasad (PW-6) was declared hostile, making his testimony unreliable.
• The recovery of weapons from the accused is not convincing as there were no public witnesses. The site plan was prepared several days after the alleged recovery.
• There are discrepancies in the testimonies regarding whether the FIR was lodged before or after the body was brought to the police station.
• The initial suspicion was on Govind, and Shabbir’s name was substituted later. The deceased had criminal antecedents and could have had other enemies.

Appellant Shabbir’s Arguments:

• Shabbir was not named in the initial report. The motive was with Govind, who was later replaced by Shabbir.
• The recovery of the country-made pistol is doubtful, with no public witness. The ballistic report was not presented to the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

State’s Arguments:

• PW-7 proved that the deceased had called for food. PW-1 and PW-3 corroborated this.
• PW-2 and PW-5 saw the deceased and the accused together near the location where the body was found.
• The defense could not prove that PW-2 and PW-5 were hostile to the accused.
• The defense did not question the witnesses’ ability to recognize the accused or the presence of moonlight.
• PW-6 supported the prosecution by stating that he saw the deceased with the accused.
• The recovery of the pistol and the forensic report connect the weapon to the crime.
• The autopsy report confirms the death was due to a gunshot, and the time of death aligns with when the deceased was last seen with the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused near the spot at the relevant time?
2. Whether the recovery of the country-made pistol and knife from the person of the accused at the time of their arrest is reliable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the reliability of witness testimony:

• Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that delayed disclosure of incriminating circumstances by a witness, without a cogent reason, reduces the value of their testimony.
• Rajesh Yadav & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny.
• Jarnail Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: (already explained above)
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: (already explained above)
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: (already explained above)
• Section 25 of the Arms Act: (already explained above)
• Section 4/25 of the Arms Act: (already explained above)
• Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: (already explained above)

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808] to highlight that the delayed disclosure by PW-2 significantly reduced the credibility of his testimony. The Court emphasized that if a witness knows of a crucial incriminating fact and remains silent for an extended period without a valid explanation, their testimony loses its value.
• The Court also referred to Rajesh Yadav & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022) 12 SCC 200] and Jarnail Singh & Others v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719] to underscore the need for cautious scrutiny of chance witnesses. The Court reiterated that the presence of a chance witness at the scene of the crime must be adequately explained, and if the presence is doubtful, their testimony should be discarded.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction was primarily driven by a lack of confidence in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court identified several critical issues that collectively undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case:

• Inconsistent Witness Testimonies: The testimonies of key witnesses, particularly PW-2 and PW-5, were found to be inconsistent and unreliable. PW-2’s delayed disclosure and questionable presence at the scene, coupled with PW-5’s contradictory statements and dubious explanation for his presence, raised significant doubts about their credibility.
• Flawed Investigation: The Court noted several deficiencies in the police investigation. The delayed preparation of the site plan for the recovery of weapons, the lack of public witnesses, and the unusual manner in which PW-5’s statement was recorded all pointed towards a flawed and possibly biased investigation.
• Lack of Corroboration: The prosecution’s case heavily relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimonies of these unreliable witnesses. The absence of corroborating evidence and the presence of discrepancies in the prosecution’s story further weakened their case.
• Procedural Irregularities: The failure to present the ballistic report to the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was a critical procedural lapse that led the Court to disregard the report.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the witnesses were truthful, but found that the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration made it impossible to accept their testimonies. The Court also considered the possibility that the police had implicated the accused based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused near the spot at the relevant time. The Court also found the recovery of weapons to be unreliable. Consequently, the Court overturned the conviction of the accused.

The court stated: “In light of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon.”

The court also noted: “On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles as discussed above, we find the evidence not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused appellants.”

The court further added: “In our view, the courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence by applying the correct legal principles.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment underscores the importance of reliable and consistent witness testimonies in criminal cases.
• It highlights the need for thorough and unbiased investigations by law enforcement agencies.
• The judgment emphasizes that convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence alone.
• The court’s decision reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The judgment serves as a reminder that delayed disclosure by witnesses without a valid explanation can significantly reduce the value of their testimony.
• The decision also highlights the importance of following proper procedures during the investigation, including the recording of statements and the preparation of site plans.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The appellants are acquitted of all charges for which they were tried and convicted.
• The appellants, who were reportedly on bail, need not surrender, and their bail bonds are discharged.
• If the appellants were not on bail, they should be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of unreliable witness testimonies and a flawed investigation. The court emphasized the need for corroborating evidence and adherence to proper procedures during the investigation. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases and the importance of credible evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellants, Ravi Mandal and Shabbir, in a murder case, citing unreliable witness testimonies, a flawed investigation, and a lack of credible evidence. The court’s decision highlights the importance of thorough investigations and the need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence alone.