Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Contradictory Evidence: State of Rajasthan vs. Madan (2018) INSC 881

Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 881

Judges: N. V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a High Court’s acquittal be overturned when the prosecution’s case relies heavily on child witnesses and circumstantial evidence riddled with contradictions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, ultimately upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused due to significant doubts in the prosecution’s case. This judgment highlights the importance of consistent and credible evidence in criminal trials, especially when dealing with serious charges like murder.

The bench comprised of Justice N. V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Smt. Santosh, who was found dead at her residence. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Madan @ Madaniya, had entered her home at night and assaulted her with a lathi, leading to her death. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the statements of two child witnesses, the victim’s siblings, and circumstantial evidence.

The sequence of events, as per the prosecution, began with an anonymous phone call to the police about the death. The police then recorded a statement from the victim’s mother, P.W.10 Smt. Devki Devi, who stated that the accused had a grudge against her daughter. She further stated that her minor daughter, P.W.5 Seema, informed her that the accused along with another person had entered their house and assaulted the deceased with a lathi.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder) and 460 (house-trespass by night) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur overturned this conviction, acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of the doubt. The State of Rajasthan then appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 460, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses house-trespass by night in order to commit an offence. It states, “All persons who jointly commit house-trespass by night in order to the committing of any offence, or being jointly concerned in such house-trespass, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Rajasthan):

• The counsel for the State argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused despite the presence of both ocular and forensic evidence establishing his guilt.
• They contended that the testimonies of the child witnesses and the forensic findings were sufficient to prove the accused’s involvement in the crime.

Respondent (Accused):

• The counsel for the accused argued that the High Court was correct in granting the benefit of doubt as there were significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.
• They submitted that the prosecution’s case was not credible due to the contradictory statements of the witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt, despite the conviction by the Trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Bannareddy and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, (2018) 5 SCC 790* to emphasize that an appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal where there is perversity of fact and law.
• The Court cited Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490* to underscore that the presumption of innocence is further reinforced for an acquitted accused.
• The Court referred to Panchhi v. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177* to highlight the need for careful evaluation and corroboration of evidence given by child witnesses, noting that the testimonies of the child witnesses in this case were contradictory and did not inspire confidence.
• The Court used Krishnegowda and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 13 SCC 98* to support its view that when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy, it is important to have independent witnesses, which was lacking in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Contradictory Statements of Witnesses: The court noted significant inconsistencies in the statements of the child witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.5) regarding the position of the victim during the assault.
• Lack of Independent Corroboration: The prosecution failed to produce any independent witnesses to corroborate the testimonies of the related witnesses.
• Unexplained Delay in Informing the Police: The family members did not inform the police immediately after the incident, raising doubts about the credibility of their statements.
• Suspicious Conduct of the Father: The court found it suspicious that the victim’s father, P.W.11, did not intervene during the incident and did not check on the victim until the police arrived.
• Discrepancies in Forensic Evidence: The court noted contradictions between the seizure list of the victim’s clothes and the forensic evidence on record.
• Inadequate Investigation: The court observed that the investigation was sketchy, particularly regarding the recovery of the lathi, which was claimed to have blood stains but was not mentioned in the recovery memo or forensic report.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Consistent Evidence: The judgment emphasizes the need for consistent and credible evidence in criminal trials. Contradictions in witness statements can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Scrutiny of Child Witnesses: Evidence from child witnesses must be carefully evaluated and corroborated, especially in serious criminal cases.
• Presumption of Innocence: The presumption of innocence is further reinforced in favor of an acquitted accused, and appellate courts should be hesitant to overturn acquittals unless there is clear perversity in the judgment.
• Thorough Investigation: The case underscores the necessity of a thorough and unbiased investigation. Discrepancies in evidence can raise doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should be very hesitant to overturn an acquittal unless there is clear perversity in the judgment of the lower court. The Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any significant contradictions in the evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This case also highlights the importance of independent witnesses in cases where the testimonies of related witnesses are unreliable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Rajasthan, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, failing to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment reinforces the principles of fair trial and the importance of credible evidence in criminal proceedings.