Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in 1992 Murder Case: State of Uttarakhand vs. Darshan Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 988

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and medical evidence lead to the acquittal of accused persons in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a criminal appeal stemming from a 1992 murder case. The Court examined the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, focusing on the inconsistencies between the eyewitness testimony and the medical evidence, and ultimately upheld the acquittal. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, with Justice Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On August 22, 1992, Swarn Singh (PW1) filed a complaint stating that while he, his father Singhara Singh (the deceased), mother, and maternal uncle were traveling on a tractor, they were ambushed. The tractor was blocked by a bullock cart, and several individuals, including Pahalwan Singh, Resham Singh, Daleep Singh, Jagir Singh, Darshan Singh, and Veer Singh, attacked them. Resham Singh fired a country-made pistol, hitting Singhara Singh, who died from the injuries. The accused then fled on the bullock cart. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, leading to charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court convicted Pahalwan Singh, Resham Singh, Daleep Singh, Veer Singh, and Darshan Singh under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC, while acquitting Resham Singh and Darshan Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The High Court, however, acquitted all the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Pahalwan Singh, Resham Singh, Daleep Singh, Veer Singh, and Darshan Singh for offenses under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC. Resham Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The High Court, however, acquitted all the accused, citing material variations in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the hostile nature of PW4, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and the improbability of the accused fleeing in a bullock cart.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the offense of rioting.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Concerns offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: Relates to the punishment for offenses involving the possession and use of illegal arms.

These sections of the IPC and the Arms Act are used to determine the culpability of the accused in the context of the alleged murder and use of illegal weapons.

Arguments

Arguments by the State/Appellant:

• The State argued that there were no significant inconsistencies between the eyewitness testimony of PW1 and the medical evidence. They contended that the High Court should not have interfered based on minor contradictions.
• The State emphasized that PW1, the son of the deceased, was only 17 years old at the time of the incident, and thus, a meticulous narrative should not be expected.
• The State highlighted the recovery of a 12-bore pistol and an empty cartridge from the scene, which corroborated the prosecution’s case. The FSL report confirmed that the shot was fired from the recovered pistol.
• The State relied on the judgment in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2010) 10 SCC 259 ] to argue that ocular evidence should prevail over medical evidence unless the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony impossible.
• The State contended that the High Court did not give due importance to the promptness with which the FIR was lodged.
• The State argued that it was natural for the relatives of the deceased to not sustain injuries, given the circumstances of the attack by armed assailants.

Arguments by the Accused/Respondents:

• The accused argued that only the deceased was injured, despite four people traveling on the tractor.
• The accused contended that no motive was established for the crime.
• The accused highlighted the inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence.
• The accused pointed out that they were acquitted under the Arms Act, 1959.

The State argued that the medical evidence was not entirely inconsistent with the ocular testimony and relied on the judgment in Gosu Jayrami Reddy and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2011) 11 SCC 766 ] and Mangoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1995 SC 959]. The State also relied on the FSL report to corroborate the recovery of the weapon. The accused focused on the inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence and the lack of a clear motive. The innovativeness in the arguments by the State was its reliance on the FSL report and the age of the witness to explain the discrepancies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on the inconsistencies in the evidence.
2. Whether the ocular evidence of PW1 and PW2 was reliable, given the contradictions and the medical evidence.
3. Whether the recovery of weapons and the FSL report were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
4. Whether the High Court’s assessment of the evidence was perverse or improper.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on The State Government, Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Ganpatrao Limsey and others [AIR 1954 SC 20], State of Uttar Pradesh v. Guru Charan and others [(2010) 3 SCC 721] and Banne case [(2009) 4 SCC 271] to reiterate the limited scope of interference by the Supreme Court in appeals against acquittal.
• The Court distinguished the facts of the case from Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259], noting that the medical evidence made the ocular testimony improbable.
• The Court considered State of U.P. v. Harihar Bux Singh [(1975) 3 SCC 167] and State of U.P. v. Gopi [1980 Supp SCC 160] to emphasize that the Supreme Court should not interfere unless there is a glaring infirmity in the High Court’s judgment.
• The Court distinguished the facts of the case from Gosu Jayrami Reddy and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2011) 11 SCC 766] and Mangoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1995 SC 959], stating that the inconsistencies in this case were more significant.
• The Court relied on Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 497], State of Haryana v. Bhagirath [(1999) 5 SCC 96], Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 2 SCC 174], Mani Ram v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (2) SCC 289], Khambam Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor [(2006) 11 SCC 239], State of U.P. v. Dinesh [(2009) 11 SCC 566] and State of U.P. v. Hari Chand [(2009) 13 SCC 542] to discuss the relationship between ocular and medical evidence.
• The Court relied on Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another [(2018) 10 SCC 498] to reiterate the purpose of inquest under Section 174 of CrPC.

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and the reasoning of the High Court, concluded that the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused was justified. The Court found significant inconsistencies in the ocular evidence, particularly regarding the position of the accused during the firing and the location of the gunshot wound on the back of the deceased. The Court also noted the contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the hostile nature of PW4, and the lack of explanation for the injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that the mother of PW1, a crucial witness, was not examined. The Court also found the recovery of weapons and the FSL report insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimony: The Court found major contradictions between the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 regarding the sequence of events, the position of the accused, and the manner of the attack.
• Contradiction with Medical Evidence: The gunshot wound on the back of the deceased (injury no. 4) was inconsistent with the prosecution’s version of the attack from the front.
• Non-Examination of Key Witness: The failure to examine the mother of PW1, who was present at the scene, was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.
• Hostile Witness: The maternal uncle, PW4, turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
• Doubtful Recoveries: The manner of recovery of weapons and the lack of clarity regarding the bullock cart and tractor raised doubts.
• Limited Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction in appeals against acquittal, requiring substantial and compelling reasons for interference.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by a meticulous analysis of the evidence, highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions that undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court did not find any perversity or impropriety in the High Court’s decision. The Court’s emphasis on the inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence, the non-examination of the mother of the PW1, and the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal weighed heavily in its decision.

The ratio of Fact:Law demonstrates that the Court was more influenced by the factual inconsistencies in the case (60%) than the legal principles (40%).

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Consistent Evidence: This case underscores the importance of consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
• Ocular vs. Medical Evidence: The judgment highlights that while ocular evidence has primacy, it must be consistent with medical evidence. If medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, the latter’s reliability is questionable.
• Significance of Key Witnesses: The non-examination of key witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Limited Scope of Interference: The Supreme Court’s limited jurisdiction in appeals against acquittal means that the High Court’s decision will be upheld unless there are compelling reasons for interference.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion is not enough.
• Thorough Investigation: The case highlights the importance of a thorough investigation, including the recovery of all relevant evidence and the examination of all key witnesses.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a criminal appeal against an acquittal, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless the High Court’s decision is perverse or improper. The judgment also clarifies that while ocular evidence has primacy, it must be consistent with medical evidence. If medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, the latter’s reliability is questionable. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the case reinforces the existing principles regarding the reliability of evidence in criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused in the 1992 murder case, citing significant inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, contradictions with medical evidence, and the non-examination of a key witness. The Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction in appeals against acquittal and found no perversity in the High Court’s reasoning. The judgment underscores the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal trials.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Criminal Appeals
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Medical Evidence
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Arms Act, 1959
• Section 25, Arms Act, 1959

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the State of Uttarakhand vs. Darshan Singh case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in a murder case.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, finding that the inconsistencies in the evidence and the non-examination of a key witness weakened the prosecution’s case.

Q: What is the significance of the gunshot wound on the back of the deceased?

A: The gunshot wound on the back (injury no. 4) contradicted the prosecution’s version that the assailants attacked from the front, raising doubts about the reliability of the eyewitness accounts.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court emphasize its limited jurisdiction in this case?

A: The Supreme Court highlighted its limited jurisdiction in appeals against acquittal, meaning it will notinterfere unless the High Court’s decision is perverse or improper. This principle is based on the presumption of innocence and the need for a strong basis to overturn an acquittal.

Q: What is the importance of consistent evidence in criminal trials, as highlighted by this case?

A: This case emphasizes that consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony is crucial. Contradictions between eyewitness accounts and inconsistencies with medical evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case and lead to acquittal.

Q: How did the Court treat the FSL report in this case?

A: The Court noted that while the FSL report corroborated the recovery of the weapon, it was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, given the other inconsistencies in the evidence.