Date of the Judgment: February 7, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 91
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a conviction for serious offenses like robbery and murder be upheld when key witnesses are not examined and the evidence is largely circumstantial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had upheld the conviction of three individuals. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the conviction, emphasizing the importance of direct and reliable evidence in criminal cases. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring.
Case Background
On the intervening night of July 3 and 4, 2003, a robbery took place at the residence of Pratap Singh and Gurpal Kaur. The complainant, Khushbir Singh (PW-8), their son, was sleeping in the same room as his parents. His brother, Satbir Singh, and his wife, Narinder Kaur (PW-9), were sleeping in another room along with their two daughters. The incident began when PW-8 was awakened by the cries of his nieces. According to the prosecution, four to five individuals entered the house, assaulted PW-8, PW-9, and Satbir Singh. The intruders broke open the almirahs and stole cash and jewelry. During the incident, Pratap Singh and Gurpal Kaur sustained injuries and later died in the hospital. The accused, Kishore, Bala, and Banaras, were convicted by the trial court. The High Court acquitted two other accused but upheld the conviction of these three appellants.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 3-4, 2003 | Robbery and assault at the residence of Pratap Singh and Gurpal Kaur. |
| October 22, 2003 | PW-9 identified the ornaments in the police station. |
| January 12, 2009 | Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala convicted the accused. |
| April 27, 2010 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh partly allowed the appeal, acquitting two accused but upholding the conviction of the present appellants. |
| July 25, 2011 | Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants. |
| February 7, 2024 | Supreme Court overturned the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted all five accused under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for rioting with deadly weapons, Section 460 read with Section 149 of the IPC for house-breaking by night, and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for murder. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh acquitted two of the accused, Raka and Lakhan, but upheld the conviction of the remaining three appellants. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 141, IPC: Defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object as specified in the section.
- Section 146, IPC: Defines rioting as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly or any member thereof in furtherance of the common object.
- Section 148, IPC: Punishes rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 149, IPC: Deals with vicarious liability, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.
- Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 460, IPC: Punishes house-breaking by night with the intention to cause death or grievous hurt.
- Section 323, IPC: Punishes voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 326, IPC: Punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
The Court also considered the concept of a test identification parade, which is a part of the investigation process to identify accused persons who are not known to the witnesses.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The appellants argued that the eyewitnesses, PW-8 and PW-9, did not know the accused before the incident, and therefore, a test identification parade should have been conducted.
- They pointed out that the witnesses identified the accused in court for the first time, a year after the incident.
- The appellants emphasized that neither PW-8 nor PW-9 stated that they saw any of the accused assaulting the deceased, Pratap Singh and Gurpal Kaur.
- They highlighted the non-examination of crucial witnesses, Lovepreet Kaur and Amritpal Kaur (the nieces of PW-8), who were the first to raise an alarm, and Satbir Singh, the injured husband of PW-9.
- The appellants raised doubts about the identification of the recovered ornaments, noting that the ornaments were mixed with others and that the goldsmith who assisted in the identification was not examined.
Respondent (State of Punjab) Submissions:
- The State argued that PW-8 and PW-9 had sufficient time to see the accused during the incident, and their examination was recorded within a year, making a test identification parade unnecessary.
- They contended that the failure to conduct a test identification parade was not fatal to the prosecution, as the testimony of PW-8 and PW-9 was reliable.
- The State relied on the judgment in Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784] to support their argument that the eyewitness identification was sufficient.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (State of Punjab) |
|---|---|---|
| Identification of Accused |
|
|
| Witness Testimony |
|
|
| Recovery of Ornaments |
|
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the non-examination of the crucial witnesses and the doubtful identification of the ornaments should lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the primary issues that the court addressed were:
- Whether the conviction under Section 148, 460 read with Section 149, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC can be sustained when the High Court acquitted two of the five accused, thus negating the existence of an unlawful assembly?
- Whether the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 is reliable enough to sustain the conviction in the absence of a test identification parade and the non-examination of key witnesses?
- Whether the recovery of ornaments was proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction under Sections 148, 460, and 302 with Section 149 | Conviction set aside | Acquittal of two accused negated the existence of an unlawful assembly, making Section 149 inapplicable. |
| Reliability of PW-8 and PW-9’s evidence | Evidence deemed unreliable | Vague statements about assaults, non-examination of key witnesses, and lack of a test identification parade raised doubts. |
| Recovery of Ornaments | Recovery deemed doubtful | Ornaments mixed with others, and the goldsmith not examined. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the court:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the respondent to argue that the eyewitness identification was sufficient, but the Supreme Court did not find it persuasive in the present case. |
| Section 141, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define the term “unlawful assembly” and to demonstrate that the acquittal of two accused meant that there was no unlawful assembly. |
| Section 146, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define rioting. |
| Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define the offense of rioting with deadly weapons. |
| Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly, and held inapplicable due to the acquittal of two accused. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define the punishment for murder. |
| Section 460, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define the offense of house-breaking by night with the intention to cause death or grievous hurt. |
| Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define the offense of voluntarily causing hurt. |
| Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Cited to define the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ argument that a test identification parade was necessary. | The Court agreed that a test identification parade was important, but its absence was not fatal if the evidence was reliable. However, in this case, the evidence was not found to be reliable. |
| Appellants’ argument that the eyewitnesses did not see the accused assaulting the deceased. | The Court found merit in this argument, noting the vague statements by PW-8 and the lack of direct evidence. |
| Appellants’ argument that key witnesses were not examined. | The Court agreed that the non-examination of Lovepreet Kaur, Amritpal Kaur, and Satbir Singh was a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case. |
| Appellants’ argument regarding the doubtful identification of recovered ornaments. | The Court found the identification of the ornaments doubtful, as the goldsmith was not examined and the ornaments were mixed with others. |
| State’s argument that the eyewitnesses had sufficient time to see the accused. | The Court did not find this argument persuasive, given the lack of specific details in the eyewitness accounts. |
| State’s reliance on Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784]. | The Court distinguished the case and did not find it applicable to the facts of the present case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court considered the judgment in Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 784]* but did not find it applicable to the facts of the present case.
- The Court used Section 141 of the IPC* to highlight that the acquittal of two accused meant that there was no unlawful assembly, thus rendering Section 149 of the IPC* inapplicable.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of direct evidence and the significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of examining key witnesses and the need for a reliable identification process. The following points weighed in the mind of the Court:
- The absence of a test identification parade, though not mandatory, was a significant factor given that the eyewitnesses did not know the accused before the incident.
- The vague statements by PW-8 and PW-9 regarding the assaults on the deceased, Pratap Singh and Gurpal Kaur, were not sufficient to establish guilt.
- The non-examination of crucial witnesses like Lovepreet Kaur, Amritpal Kaur, and Satbir Singh created a significant doubt about the prosecution’s version of events.
- The doubtful identification of the recovered ornaments, due to the mixing of ornaments and the non-examination of the goldsmith, weakened the prosecution’s case.
- The acquittal of two accused by the High Court negated the existence of an unlawful assembly, making Section 149 of the IPC inapplicable.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of direct evidence of assaults on the deceased | 30% |
| Non-examination of key witnesses | 25% |
| Doubtful identification of recovered ornaments | 20% |
| Absence of test identification parade | 15% |
| Acquittal of two accused negating unlawful assembly | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the alternative of applying Section 34 of the IPC (common intention) but did not do so, as it would not be appropriate after 21 years and given the fact that the appellants had served more than seven years in prison.
The Court stated, “It is very difficult to connect any accused with the injuries sustained by the deceased in the absence of any cogent evidence.”
The Court also noted, “The prosecution has not come out with any reason for not examining these two vital witnesses.”
Further, the Court observed, “Therefore, even the identification of the ornaments by PW -9 becomes doubtful. The prosecution case regarding the recovery of the ornaments at the instance of the appellants also becomes doubtful.”
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring.
Key Takeaways
- The absence of a test identification parade can be a significant factor in cases where the eyewitnesses do not know the accused.
- The non-examination of key witnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case and raise doubts about the reliability of the evidence.
- The identification of recovered property must be done carefully and reliably, with all necessary witnesses examined.
- The concept of an unlawful assembly and vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC requires the presence of five or more persons.
- The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through direct and cogent evidence.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The bail bonds of the appellants were cancelled.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of serious offenses, the prosecution must provide direct and reliable evidence. The non-examination of key witnesses, vague statements by eyewitnesses, and doubtful identification of recovered property can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment reinforces the importance of a fair trial and the need for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kishore & Ors. vs. State of Punjab is a significant reminder of the importance of direct and reliable evidence in criminal cases. The Court overturned the conviction of the appellants, highlighting the flaws in the prosecution’s case, including the non-examination of key witnesses and the doubtful identification of recovered ornaments. This judgment underscores the need for a thorough investigation and the importance of upholding the principles of justice.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Evidence, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 141, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 146, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 460, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Unlawful Assembly, Rioting, Vicarious Liability, Test Identification Parade, Eyewitness Testimony, Robbery, Murder
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Kishore & Ors. vs. State of Punjab case?
A: The main issue was whether the conviction of the appellants for robbery and murder could be upheld based on the available evidence, given the non-examination of key witnesses and the doubtful identification of recovered property.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the conviction?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence. The eyewitness accounts were vague, key witnesses were not examined, and the identification of the recovered ornaments was doubtful.
Q: What is a test identification parade, and why is it important?
A: A test identification parade is a process where witnesses identify accused persons who they do not know. It is important to ensure that the identification is reliable and not influenced by other factors.
Q: What is the significance of Section 149 of the IPC?
A: Section 149 of the IPC deals with vicarious liability, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense. In this case, the acquittal of two accused negated the existence of an unlawful assembly, making Section 149 inapplicable.
Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment for the prosecution?
A: The key takeaways are that the prosecution must ensure that all key witnesses are examined, that the identification of the accused and recovered property is done reliably, and that the evidence presented is direct and cogent.