Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction Due to Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (24 May 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 May 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a murder conviction stand solely on the testimony of eyewitnesses whose presence at the scene is doubtful? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal. This case examines the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the importance of corroborating evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with the opinion authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on August 30, 2009, near Chauve ka bandh in Rajasthan. According to the initial complaint, Shiv Charan and Babu Singh were traveling on a motorcycle when they were attacked. It was alleged that Guman Singh, along with Satvir Singh and Shyam Singh, fired upon them. Shiv Charan died as a result of the attack, and Babu Singh sustained injuries. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4), who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan, convicted Guman Singh. However, Jagdish Singh was acquitted. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur upheld Guman Singh’s conviction while acquitting Shyam Singh and Satvir Singh. Guman Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses the attempt to murder and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the examination of witnesses by police.

Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the procedure for investigation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were unreliable and contradictory.
• The appellant contended that their presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful, as they were not found at the spot by the investigating officer when he arrived.
• The appellant pointed out that Babu Singh (PW-3), the injured witness, did not corroborate the presence of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) at the scene.
• The appellant highlighted the delay in recording the statements of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The appellant argued that the FSL report did not conclusively link the recovered bullet to the weapon seized.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were reliable eyewitnesses to the incident.
• The prosecution relied on the FSL report, which stated that the hole in Babu Singh’s shirt was caused by a copper-jacketed bullet.
• The prosecution contended that the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was the veracity and truthfulness of the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) as eyewitnesses to the incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the case of Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 11 SCC 367], where the Court had categorized witnesses into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The Court used this categorization to assess the reliability of the eyewitnesses in the present case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were wholly unreliable. The Court noted that their presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful, as they were not found at the spot by the investigating officer (PW-7) when he arrived. The Court also highlighted that Babu Singh (PW-3), the injured witness, did not support their claim of being present at the scene. The Court also noted that the FSL report did not conclusively link the recovered bullet to the weapon seized.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated that “the prosecution, therefore, has to fail as it has failed to prove that the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy so as to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court also noted that the statements of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded three days after the incident, which raised doubts about their credibility. The Court emphasized that “the assertion and claim of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) of being eye-witnesses to the incident was clearly on second thoughts and after due deliberation.”

The Court concluded that the identification of Guman Singh as one of the perpetrators by Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) was unreliable and should not be accepted without substantial corroboration. The Court stated that “identification by Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) of the appellant- Guman Singh as one of the perpetrators who had fired on Shiv Charan and Babu Singh (PW-3) is unreliable and should not be accepted without substantial corroboration and supporting material/evidence to establish involvement of the appellant-Guman Singh.”

The Court overturned the conviction of Guman Singh and ordered his release.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence to support the conviction. The court placed significant emphasis on the following:

• Doubtful Presence of Eyewitnesses: The testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were deemed unreliable due to contradictions with the police’s account of the events. The fact that they were not present at the scene when the police arrived raised serious doubts about their claims of being eyewitnesses.
• Lack of Corroboration: The injured witness, Babu Singh (PW-3), did not corroborate the presence of Tara Singh and Varun Singh at the scene. This lack of corroboration further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Weak FSL Report: The FSL report was not conclusive in linking the recovered bullet to the weapon seized. This lack of a strong forensic link further undermined the prosecution’s case.
• Delay in Recording Statements: The delay in recording the statements of Tara Singh and Varun Singh under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 raised doubts about their credibility.

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony must be thoroughly scrutinized for reliability and consistency.
• Corroborating evidence is crucial for convictions, especially in cases where eyewitness accounts are doubtful.
• Forensic evidence plays a vital role in establishing the involvement of the accused.
• Procedural lapses, such as delays in recording statements, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Guman Singh be set free forthwith unless he is required to be detained in any other case in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that eyewitness testimony, if found to be unreliable and uncorroborated, cannot be the sole basis for a conviction. The case reinforces the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for thorough scrutiny of eyewitness accounts. This judgment does not introduce a new legal principle but reaffirms the established principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the burden of proof and the reliability of evidence. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 11 SCC 367].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan highlights the critical importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials. By overturning the conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimony and insufficient corroborating evidence, the Court upheld the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that convictions are based on solid proof rather than doubtful claims.