Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 405
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies and delayed reporting impact a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a political clash that resulted in a murder. The court examined the reliability of eyewitness accounts, the significance of delays in reporting, and the evidentiary value of recoveries made during the investigation. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, delivered a judgment that reversed the High Court’s conviction of some accused while upholding the conviction of others. Justice M.M. Sundresh authored the judgment.
Case Background
The case stems from a violent incident on July 18, 2002, where members of the National Development Front (NDF) allegedly attacked and killed a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]. The conflict was preceded by an altercation on July 17, 2002, between members of the two political parties, where the deceased had reportedly assaulted one of the accused. Seeking revenge, a group of 16 individuals, allegedly assembled at the family house of one of the accused at around 7:00 p.m. on the same day, and conspired to murder the deceased. On July 18, 2002, at approximately 9:30 p.m., a group of the accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the deceased at his residence. The attack involved swords, knives, choppers, and country-made bombs.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17.07.2002, 4:00 p.m. | Altercation between CPI(M) and NDF members; deceased reportedly assaulted A-3. |
| 17.07.2002, 7:00 p.m. | Accused allegedly assembled at A-5’s house and conspired to kill the deceased. |
| 18.07.2002, 9:30 p.m. | Attack on the deceased at his residence. |
| 18.07.2002, 11:00 p.m. | FIR registered against six named accused and other identifiable ones. |
| 19.07.2002, 4:15 p.m. | Registered complaint reached the jurisdictional Magistrate. |
| 31.07.2002 | A-10, A-12, and A-13 were arrested. |
| 01.08.2002 | Recoveries made from A-10, A-12, and A-13. |
| 05.08.2002 | A-11 surrendered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur. |
| 13.08.2002 | Recoveries made from A-11. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other related offenses, while acquitting A-10 to A-16. The High Court of Kerala upheld the conviction of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9, and also convicted A-10 to A-13, overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of A-14 to A-16. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the convicted accused filed appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Explosive Substances Act. Key provisions include:
- Section 143, IPC: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 148, IPC: Punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
- Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
- Section 427, IPC: Punishment for mischief causing damage.
- Section 460, IPC: Punishment for house-trespass by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.
- Section 120B, IPC: Punishment for criminal conspiracy.
- Section 3, Explosive Substances Act: Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property.
- Section 5, Explosive Substances Act: Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9:
- The First Information Report (FIR) was an afterthought and ante-dated.
- There was an unexplained delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- The witnesses were either interested or chance witnesses, and their testimonies should have been rejected.
- The injuries suffered by A-8 and A-9 were not considered correctly.
Arguments on behalf of A-10 to A-13:
- There is an enlarged presumption of innocence in appeals against acquittal.
- The High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s judgment by substituting its views.
- The High Court should have considered whether the Trial Court’s view was a possible one.
- The High Court wrongly relied on recoveries, and the manner of recoveries was not properly examined.
- Section 149 IPC requires proof of common object, which was not established.
- The witnesses could not identify the accused properly, making their testimonies doubtful.
Arguments on behalf of the State:
- There was no apparent illegality in the concurrent decisions of the courts below.
- Both courts considered all evidence, including eyewitnesses, material objects, and scientific evidence.
- The motive was proved through prior occurrences.
- The High Court rightly considered recoveries along with oral evidence.
- The Trial Court did not consider the evidentiary value of recoveries.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| FIR Issues | FIR was an afterthought and ante-dated. | A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 |
| Unexplained delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate. | A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 | |
| Reference to vehicle registration number in FIR was improbable. | A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 | |
| FIR was not properly examined. | A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 | |
| Eyewitness Testimony | Witnesses were interested or chance witnesses. | A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 |
| Witnesses could not identify accused properly. | A-10 to A-13 | |
| Discrepancies in eyewitness statements. | A-10 to A-13 | |
| Testimonies were doubtful. | A-10 to A-13 | |
| High Court’s Reversal of Acquittal | High Court substituted its views for that of the Trial Court. | A-10 to A-13 |
| High Court did not consider if the Trial Court’s view was a possible one. | A-10 to A-13 | |
| High Court erred in relying on recoveries. | A-10 to A-13 | |
| Recoveries | Manner of recoveries was not properly examined. | A-10 to A-13 |
| Trial Court did not consider the evidentiary value of recoveries. | State | |
| Section 149 IPC | Lack of proof of common object. | A-10 to A-13 |
| General | Concurrent decisions of the courts below did not warrant interference. | State |
| All evidence, including scientific evidence, was considered. | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of A-10 to A-13 by the Trial Court.
- Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8 and A-9.
- Whether the delay in sending the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) affects the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were properly considered.
- Whether the discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies were sufficient to acquit A-10 to A-13.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Reversal of Acquittal of A-10 to A-13 | Reversed | Trial Court’s view was possible; High Court substituted its views. Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and doubtful. Recoveries were not properly proved. |
| Upholding Conviction of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8 and A-9 | Upheld | Both courts thoroughly considered evidence; no perversity found. Delay in FIR was not wilful. Witness testimonies were credible. |
| Delay in FIR and Section 161 Cr.PC Statements | Not fatal in this case | Delay was not wilful, and the court considered the circumstances. |
| Recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act | Not properly proved for A-10 to A-13 | Witnesses for recovery were not credible, and there were inconsistencies. |
| Discrepancies in Eyewitness Testimonies | Sufficient to acquit A-10 to A-13 | Witnesses struggled to identify A-10 to A-13, and their testimonies were doubtful. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Mohan @Srinivas @Seena @Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the scope of an appellate court’s powers in appeals against acquittal. |
| Anwar Ali v. State of Himanchal Pradesh , (2020) 10 SCC 166 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn., (1984) 4 SCC 635 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons , 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad , (2001) 1 SCC 501 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P ., (2009) 10 SCC 636 | Supreme Court of India | Explained how findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse. |
| Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the concept of perversity in a court’s decision. |
| Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 | Supreme Court of India | Considered the scope of Section 378 CrPC and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. |
| Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal. |
| Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal. |
| Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal. |
| K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 309 | Supreme Court of India | Explained that the High Court can interfere if the trial court’s approach is improper. |
| Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal. |
| Surajpal Singh v. State, 1951 SCC 1207 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal. |
| Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P., 1951 SCC 898 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal. |
| K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P ., (1979) 1 SCC 355 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the High Court’s duty to interfere if the trial court’s view is barely possible. |
| N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., [(2021) 3 SCC 687] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the principles for appellate courts in appeals against acquittal. |
| Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 | Supreme Court of India | Laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. |
| Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383 | Supreme Court of India | Explained that the High Court can interfere only if the trial court’s view is not a possible one. |
| Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P ., (2017) 5 SCC 719 | Supreme Court of India | Explained that the High Court cannot interfere with a possible view of the trial court. |
| Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 9 SCC 561 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Shiv Ram v. State of U.P ., (1998) 1 SCC 149 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2010) 1 SCC 108 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Rajeevan v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the consequences of delayed lodging of the FIR. |
| Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the consequences of delayed lodging of the FIR. |
| Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delayed dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the importance of promptly forwarding the occurrence report. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in lodging the FIR. |
| Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan , (2016) 4 SCC 96 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in recording statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. |
| Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of delay in recording statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. |
| Kusal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 13 SCC 676 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the principles of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 9 SCC 315 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the principles of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 | Privy Council | Explained the principles of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 872 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the principles of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Navaneethakrishnan v. State, (2018) 16 SCC 161 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| H.P . Admn. v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the caution required in considering recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 134 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the scope and limitations of confessions and recoveries under the Evidence Act. |
| K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P ., (1963) 3 SCR 412 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9, upholding their conviction. However, the court allowed the appeals of A-10 to A-13, setting aside their conviction by the High Court and restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal.
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| FIR was an afterthought and ante-dated. | Rejected. The court found no material to hold that the delay was willful or deliberate. |
| Unexplained delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate. | Rejected. The Trial Court considered the delay, and the reasoning was found to be without infirmity. |
| Reference to vehicle registration number in FIR was improbable. | Rejected. The evidence suggested the place and manner of the occurrence, and the reference to the vehicle was not material. |
| Witnesses were interested or chance witnesses. | Rejected. The court held that testimonies of family members and chance witnesses cannot be rejected solely based on their relationship or chance presence. |
| Injuries suffered by A-8 and A-9 were not considered correctly. | Rejected. The court found that the doctor’s evidence and eyewitness accounts explained the injuries. |
| High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s judgment by substituting its views. | Accepted. The court found that the High Court had substituted its views for that of the Trial Court. |
| High Court should have considered whether the Trial Court’s view was a possible one. | Accepted. The court held that the Trial Court’s view was a possible one and should not have been disturbed. |
| High Court wrongly relied on recoveries. | Accepted. The court found that the recoveries were not properly proved and raised doubts. |
| Section 149 IPC requires proof of common object, which was not established. | Accepted. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the common object against A-10 to A-13. |
| Witnesses could not identify the accused properly, making their testimonies doubtful. | Accepted. The court found the witnesses struggling to identify A-10 to A-13, making their testimonies doubtful. |
| There was no apparent illegality in the concurrent decisions of the courts below. | Partially Accepted. The court upheld the conviction of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 but reversed the conviction of A-10 to A-13. |
| Both courts considered all evidence, including scientific evidence. | Partially Accepted. The court found that the Trial Court’s assessment of evidence for A-10 to A-13 was more appropriate. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Mohan @Srinivas @Seena @Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233] | *Cited* to emphasize the need for appellate courts to be circumspect when reversing acquittals. |
| Anwar Ali v. State of Himanchal Pradesh , (2020) 10 SCC 166 | *Cited* to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse. |
| N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., [(2021) 3 SCC 687] | *Cited* to reiterate the principles for appellate courts in appeals against acquittal. |
| Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2011) 9 SCC 561] | *Cited* to explain that delay in sending FIR to Magistrate is not always fatal. |
| Rajeevan v. State of Kerala, [(2003) 3 SCC 355] | *Cited* to discuss the consequences of delayed lodging of FIR. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, [(2002) 5 SCC 745] | *Cited* to discuss the effect of delay in lodging FIR. |
| Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan , [(2016) 4 SCC 96] | *Cited* to discuss the effect of delay in recording statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. |
| Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, [(1978) 4 SCC 371] | *Cited* to discuss the effect of delay in recording statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. |
| Kusal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, [(2019) 13 SCC 676] | *Cited* to explain the principles of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Navaneethakrishnan v. State, [(2018) 16 SCC 161] | *Cited* to discuss the admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| H.P . Admn. v. Om Prakash, [(1972) 1 SCC 249] | *Cited* to emphasize the caution required in considering recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
| Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, [(1966) 1 SCR 134] | *Cited* to explain the scope and limitations of confessions and recoveries under the Evidence Act. |
| K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P ., [(1963) 3 SCR 412] | *Cited* to explain the admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies regarding A-10 to A-13, the lack of proper identification, and the doubtful nature of the recoveries. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles governing appeals against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence is strengthened. The court also noted that the High Court had substituted its views for that of the Trial Court, which had the advantage of observing the witnesses. The court was also critical of the manner in which recoveries were made, particularly the lack of credible witnesses and the involvement of party members in the recovery process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimony | 30% |
| Doubtful Recoveries | 25% |
| High Court’s Substitution of Views | 20% |
| Presumption of Innocence | 15% |
| Lack of Proper Identification | 10% |
Flowchart of the Case
Incident: Political clash leading to murder (18.07.2002)
Trial Court: Convicts A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9; Acquits A-10 to A-16
High Court: Upholds conviction of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9; Convicts A-10 to A-13
Supreme Court: Upholds conviction of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9; Acquits A-10 to A-13
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Jafarudheen & Ors. vs. State of Kerala (2022) highlights the importance of a thorough examination of evidence, particularly in criminal cases. The court emphasized that appellate courts should be cautious when reversing acquittals and should not substitute their views for those of the trial court unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice. The case also underscores the significance of credible eyewitness testimonies, properly conducted recoveries, and adherence to the principles of criminal law. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced approach in the administration of justice, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected while maintaining public confidence in the legal system.