Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Harvinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023) INSC 907 (13 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 907
Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal based primarily on the testimony of a single witness, especially when that witness’s conduct appears unnatural? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a murder conviction. The Court emphasized the importance of witness credibility, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the limitations of circumstantial evidence.

This judgment highlights the critical role of trial courts in assessing witness demeanor and the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when overturning acquittals. The Supreme Court ultimately restored the trial court’s acquittal, underscoring the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment was authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala concurring.

Case Background

The case involves the appellant, Harvinder Singh, and a co-accused who were charged with multiple offenses, including murder, rape, and housebreaking, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of PW1, a neighbor of the deceased.

On June 17, 2003, at approximately 3:15 PM, PW1 claimed he heard the deceased crying for help from her cow-shed. Upon reaching her house, he allegedly saw the two accused at the main gate, with one of them having blood stains on his shirt and smelling of alcohol. The accused threatened PW1, who then fled. Later, PW1, along with his wife (PW2) and another neighbor, found the deceased dead in a pool of blood, half-naked.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered about five hours after the incident. The police investigation included lifting fingerprints, which yielded no usable results, and recovering stolen articles from a woman named PW6. The prosecution also filed a supplementary charge-sheet, alleging that the accused broke into the house, attempted to rape the deceased, and murdered her when she resisted.

The trial court acquitted the accused, disbelieving PW1’s testimony due to his unnatural conduct and the prosecution’s failure to examine key witnesses. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the appellant of murder and attempted rape, relying heavily on PW1’s evidence and the fact that the accused were declared proclaimed offenders.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer), Fast Track Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, acquitted the accused, finding PW1’s testimony unreliable due to his unnatural conduct. The trial court noted that PW1 did not react immediately after the incident, did not enter the house to check on the deceased, and advised the children to tell their mother to file a complaint despite her being dead. The trial court also highlighted the lack of a fingerprint report and the non-examination of material witnesses, including the children of the deceased.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed the trial court’s decision, primarily relying on the testimony of PW1, whom it considered a natural, educated, and God-fearing person. The High Court also considered the prior enmity between PW5 (the deceased’s husband) and the accused, the homicidal nature of the death as stated by PW9 (the doctor who conducted the post-mortem), and the recovery of a sword and knife from the scene of occurrence.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which defines “fact” to include both external and internal states. Specifically, it notes that reputation is considered a fact under this provision.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states:

“3. Interpretation clause .—In this Act the following words and expressions are used
in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: —
xxx xxx xxx
“Fact”.—“Fact” means and includes—
(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the
senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a
fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or
fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified
time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.”

The Court also discusses Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of conduct as a fact. The Court notes that the conduct of a witness is a relevant fact to determine their reputation.

The judgment also refers to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without specifically addressing its factual findings.
• The High Court should not have relied on PW1’s testimony given the contradictions in his statements and his unnatural conduct.
• The prosecution’s lapses, such as the lack of a fingerprint report and non-examination of material witnesses, were not adequately addressed by the High Court.
• The High Court’s reliance on the recovery of stolen articles was misplaced, as PW6 stated that the jewels were pledged, not sold.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The High Court was within its rights to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the trial court’s decision.
• PW1’s testimony should be accepted as he had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
• The High Court rightly considered the prior enmity between the accused and PW5.
• The conviction for attempt to rape, despite acquittal for rape, shows that the High Court applied its mind to the evidence.
• The fact that the accused were declared proclaimed offenders adds weight to the prosecution’s case.

The arguments focused on the reliability of the key witness (PW1), the procedural lapses by the prosecution, and the propriety of the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s acquittal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal based primarily on the testimony of PW1.
2. Whether the conduct of PW1 was natural and reliable.
3. Whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the lapses in investigation and non-examination of material witnesses.
4. Whether the High Court appropriately considered the principles governing circumstantial evidence.
5. Whether the High Court appropriately considered the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its decision. These authorities were categorized based on the legal points they addressed:

On the Reliability of Witnesses:

• Lahu Kamlakar Patil And Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417: This case discussed how a witness’s unnatural conduct can cast doubt on their testimony. The Supreme Court highlighted that while witnesses may react differently in different situations, conduct that is not in accordance with acceptable human behavior raises questions about the witness’s reliability.
• Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 (4) SCALE 478: This case emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof and that the testimony of a single eyewitness must be reliable and trustworthy. Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be grounds for disbelieving a witness.
• Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282: This case held that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable witness, corroboration is needed if the witness is not wholly reliable.
• Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614]: This case classified oral testimony into three categories: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It emphasized that the court should focus on the quality of evidence, not the quantity.

On the Appreciation of Evidence:

• Rajesh Yadav And Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200: This case discussed the definition of “proved” under the Evidence Act, emphasizing the importance of the degree of probability in proving a fact. It also highlighted the role of “matters” (including evidence) in a court’s decision-making process.

On Circumstantial Evidence:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: This case laid down the “panchsheel” of proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, stating that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, and exclude every other hypothesis.

On the Double Presumption of Innocence:

• Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440: This case emphasized that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that an appellate court should be slow in reversing such an order.
• Mohan v. State of Karnataka [(2022) 12 SCC 619 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233]: This case reiterated that the presumption of innocence gathers strength when a trial court acquits the accused and that the appellate court must be satisfied that the trial court’s view is not only possible but also plausible.
• Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. [(2020) 10 SCC 166 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395]: This case discussed when findings of fact can be considered perverse, such as when they are based on no evidence or unreliable evidence.

On Non-Examination of Material Witnesses:

• Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145: This case discussed the effect of not examining material witnesses, stating that an adverse inference may be drawn if a witness is deliberately withheld and their testimony would likely damage the prosecution’s case.

On the Effect of Absconding:

• Durga Burman Roy v. State of Sikkim, (2014) 13 SCC 35: This case held that absconding by itself does not prove guilt, as a person may abscond due to fear of false implication or arrest.
• Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand [(2013) 4 SCC 422 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 427]: This case reiterated that absconding does not prove guilt and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt without relying on the weakness of the defense.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Definition of “fact,” including reputation.
• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Relevance of conduct as a fact.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Examination of witnesses by the police.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Lahu Kamlakar Patil And Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417* to emphasize that a witness’s unnatural conduct can cast doubt on their testimony.
• The Court cited Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 (4) SCALE 478* to highlight that suspicion cannot replace proof and that the testimony of a single eyewitness must be reliable.
• The Court used Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282* to underscore that while a conviction can be based on a single reliable witness, corroboration is needed if the witness is not wholly reliable.
• The Court referred to Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614]* to emphasize the importance of the quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses.
• The Court applied Rajesh Yadav And Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200* to reinforce the importance of the degree of probability in proving a fact.
• The Court invoked Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116* to reiterate the principles of circumstantial evidence, stating that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt.
• The Court relied on Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440* and Mohan v. State of Karnataka [(2022) 12 SCC 619 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233]* to emphasize that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.
• The Court used Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. [(2020) 10 SCC 166 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395]* to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse.
• The Court cited Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145* to underscore that an adverse inference can be drawn if material witnesses are deliberately withheld.
• The Court referred to Durga Burman Roy v. State of Sikkim, (2014) 13 SCC 35* and Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand [(2013) 4 SCC 422 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 427]* to clarify that absconding does not prove guilt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Unnatural Conduct of PW1: The Court found PW1’s behavior, such as not immediately reacting to the deceased’s cries for help and waiting for his wife before entering the house, to be highly unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behavior.
• Lack of Corroboration: The Court noted the absence of corroborating evidence, particularly the non-examination of material witnesses like the deceased’s children and the lack of a fingerprint report.
• Double Presumption of Innocence: The Court emphasized that the trial court’s acquittal strengthened the presumption of innocence, and the High Court should have been cautious in reversing it.
• Lapses in Investigation: The Court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to provide a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the FIR and the non-examination of key witnesses.
• Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court found that the High Court did not adhere to the principles of circumstantial evidence, which require that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt.

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by its assessment of the facts, particularly the conduct of PW1 and the lack of corroborating evidence. The legal principles related to the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the rules of circumstantial evidence also played a significant role.

The Supreme Court stepped through the facts, the evidence and the legal principles to come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the High Court’s reliance on PW1’s testimony and the prior enmity between the accused and PW5. However, the Court rejected these interpretations due to the lack of corroborating evidence and the unnatural conduct of PW1. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in its assessment. The Court stated that the High Court should have given more weight to the trial court’s findings, which had the benefit of observing the witnesses’ demeanor.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court did not adequately consider the trial court’s findings on the credibility of PW1.
• The High Court relied heavily on PW1’s testimony despite its unnatural aspects and contradictions.
• The High Court failed to adequately address the prosecution’s lapses in investigation, such as the non-examination of key witnesses and the lack of a fingerprint report.
• The High Court did not properly apply the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• The High Court did not give due weight to the double presumption of innocence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the accused. The Court emphasized the need for trial courts to carefully assess witness demeanor and for appellate courts to exercise caution when overturning acquittals.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of witness credibility and the burden of proof in criminal trials. It also highlights the limitations of circumstantial evidence and the need for appellate courts to respect the trial court’s findings, particularly when they are based on the demeanor of witnesses. The judgment serves as a reminder that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal justice.

The judgment reinforces the idea that the prosecution must present a coherent and convincing case, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. The case also serves as a reminder that the conduct of witnesses is a crucial factor in determining their credibility and that appellate courts should not lightly overturn acquittals based on a re-appreciation of the evidence alone.

This case serves as a significant precedent for cases involving similar issues of witness credibility, circumstantial evidence, and the double presumption of innocence.