Supreme Court overturns conviction of two accused in murder case: Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Amitava Roy, J.

Can a conviction be sustained when key evidence is suppressed and the testimonies of witnesses are inconsistent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a brutal assault and murder. The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, focusing on the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the standard of proof necessary for a conviction.

The case involves multiple accused persons charged with murder and assault. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of each accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of inconsistencies in witness statements and the non-production of crucial evidence. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and Amitava Roy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

On December 10, 2006, between 10:20 PM and 10:30 PM, Vitthal Hingane (PW-2) and his brother Jagdish Hingane (the deceased) were returning from the office of Uttam Gite in Mulund. They were confronted by six individuals: Sunil Chandanshiva (Accused No. 1), Vijay Nirmal (Accused No. 2), Latesh Karlekar (Accused No. 3), Sandeep Bhosale (Accused No. 4), Vishnu Bule (Accused No. 5), and Anil Gadekar (Accused No. 6).

The accused, armed with weapons including a chopper, sword, sickle, and sticks, attacked Jagdish Hingane and injured Vitthal Hingane. Hearing the commotion, Police Naik Dyaneshwar Ladse (PW-11) and another police officer rushed to the scene. Accused No. 1 was apprehended with a blood-stained chopper, while the other accused managed to escape.

PW-2 was taken to Mulund General Hospital, and later to Sion Hospital for further treatment. Jagdish Hingane succumbed to his injuries at approximately 11:23 PM. PW-11 claimed that the deceased had revealed the names of four assailants to him, which he recorded in his case diary, although this diary was not produced in court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 4, 25, and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The trial court convicted all the accused under various sections of the IPC, the Arms Act and the Bombay Police Act. Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were convicted under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC, while Accused Nos. 4, 5, and 6 were convicted under Section 307 read with 149 of the IPC. The trial court reasoned that the accused were known to the victims, the weapons were recovered, and the non-production of the dying declaration was not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Sections 143, 144, 147, and 148 of the IPC. It modified the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, and Accused Nos. 4, 5, and 6 to Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC. The High Court emphasized that the non-attribution of specific roles was not detrimental due to the victim’s traumatized state, and that there was corroboration of evidence from multiple witnesses.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Bombay Police Act. These provisions are central to understanding the charges against the accused.

• Section 143 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 144 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for joining an unlawful assembly armed with any deadly weapon.
• Section 147 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the IPC: Addresses the common object of an unlawful assembly. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.
• Section 302 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 34 of the IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Sections 4, 25, and 27 of the Indian Arms Act: Pertain to the possession and use of illegal arms.
• Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act: Relate to violations of prohibitory orders and penalties.

Arguments

The counsels for the accused raised several arguments against their conviction:

• Motive: The motive of previous criminal litigation was a double-edged sword and should not be considered, especially since both parties were from opposing political parties.
• Delay in FIR: The First Information Report (FIR) was filed with substantial delay and was based on supplementary statements rather than the initial statement of the deceased.
• Dying Declaration: The dying declaration revealed to PW-11 was not made part of the prosecution evidence, raising suspicion.
• Inclusion of Accused: Even if the dying declaration was true, it did not include the names of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, discrediting their inclusion.
• Weapon Recovery: Weapons were recovered only from Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 6, while Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for culpable homicide amounting to murder.
• Arrest Before FIR: Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested before the FIR was registered, raising doubts about the veracity of the incident.
• Contradictory Statements: PW-2 contradicted his statements regarding revealing the names of the accused, and the doctor could not confirm if PW-2 had revealed names in his complaint.
• Hostile Witnesses: PW-15 and PW-16 were declared hostile, which should be taken into account.
• Non-examination of Witness: Ghanshyam Pawar, who was present at the incident, was not part of the prosecution’s case.
• Suspicious Seizure: The seizure of weapons was done under suspicious circumstances.
• Chemical Analysis: Chemical analysis of blood-stained weapons was not presented to the accused.

The counsel for the State argued that the contradictions were minor and did not go to the root of the matter. They stated that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not required since the accused were known to the deceased and PW-2. Further, they argued that PW-2’s evidence, when read as a whole, was consistent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the High Court was right in convicting the accused?
3. Whether the non-production of the case diary and the dying declaration by the prosecution is fatal to the case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities in its judgment:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Rakesh & Anr. v. State of M.P. [CITATION], Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Anr. V. State of Guj. [CITATION] and State of U.P. v. Hari Chand [CITATION], stating that oral evidence takes precedence over medical evidence unless the latter completely refutes the former.
• The court analyzed Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the IPC, along with Section 34 of the IPC, to determine the applicability of the charges to the accused.
• The court also considered the provisions of the Indian Arms Act and the Bombay Police Act to assess the charges related to illegal arms and violations of prohibitory orders.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.” The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and that the court cannot convict based on suspicion or probability.

The court noted that the non-production of the case diary and the alleged dying declaration created a suspicion regarding the involvement of Accused Nos. 2 and 3. The court also found that the evidence against these two accused was primarily based on the oral testimony of PW-2, without any independent corroboration.

For Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the court found that the evidence, including the recovery of weapons and the consistency in witness statements, supported their conviction. The court also emphasized that minor contradictions in witness statements are common and do not invalidate the entire case.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The final decision was reached after a thorough analysis of the evidence, legal provisions, and precedents.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The non-production of crucial evidence raises suspicion and can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Minor contradictions in witness statements are expected and do not invalidate the entire case.
• Oral evidence takes precedence over medical evidence unless the latter completely refutes the former.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard in criminal trials.
• Suppression of key evidence by the prosecution can be detrimental to their case, especially when it raises doubts about the involvement of the accused.
• Minor contradictions in witness statements do not necessarily invalidate the entire testimony, but significant inconsistencies can lead to doubts about the truthfulness of the statement.
• The court reiterated that a Test Identification Parade is not mandatory if the accused are already known to the witnesses.
• The judgment highlights the importance of independent corroboration of evidence, especially when the case hinges on the testimony of a single witness.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the concerned authorities to set free Accused Nos. 2 and 3 forthwith, if not required in any other offense.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any suppression of evidence or significant inconsistencies in witness statements can lead to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment also reinforces the principle that a Test Identification Parade is not mandatory if the accused are known to the witnesses. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the importance of a fair trial and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court acquitted Accused Nos. 2 and 3 due to a lack of evidence and the suppression of key information, while upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 5, and 6 based on the cogent evidence presented. This case serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal trials and the importance of transparency in the judicial process.