Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1980 Murder Case: Karan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 2nd March 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 187

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can minor discrepancies in witness statements undermine a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a 1980 murder. The Court examined whether the conviction of an accused was valid, despite the absence of a recovered weapon and minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

On April 8, 1980, Rati Pal filed a complaint at Kaanth Police Station, alleging that Rajkumar Singh had not paid for a buffalo purchased from his brother, Brahmapal Singh. Brahmapal had prevented Rajkumar from harvesting his crops due to the unpaid debt. On April 8, 1980, Brahmapal, along with Rati Pal, Shreepal Singh, Mahendra Singh, and Badshah Singh, went to Simra Khera to collect the money from Rajkumar. At Sher Singh Thakur’s house, they were confronted by Rajkumar, Karan Singh, Sukhlal, Jagdish Singh, Harpal Singh, and Nankoo Singh, all armed. Rajkumar shot Brahmapal, and the others also fired. Brahmapal died, and Mahendra Singh was injured. The police filed a chargesheet against the accused under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused, including the Appellant, for murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and other accused persons, upholding the conviction. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 148: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.” This section deals with the offense of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” This section states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of the same assembly at the time of the commission of that offense is guilty of that offense.
• Section 302: “Punishment for murder.” This section prescribes the punishment for the offense of murder, which is typically life imprisonment or the death penalty.
• Section 307: “Attempt to murder.” This section deals with the offense of attempting to commit murder, prescribing punishment for such attempts.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence against him.
• The appellant contended that no weapon was recovered from him.
• The appellant stated that the main injured witness, Mahendra Singh, did not see him at the spot.
• The appellant submitted that the medical evidence did not show any injuries caused by a rifle, only by gun pellets.
• The appellant argued that the Trial Court based its conviction on assumptions, not evidence.
• The appellant relied on Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that a witness’s statement cannot be split, and if part of it is disbelieved, the whole statement should be discarded.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court should not be interfered with.
• The State submitted that the prosecution proved its case through the testimonies of three eyewitnesses.
• The State contended that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies are acceptable and do not undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The State relied on Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v. State of Maharashtra, and Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan to argue that minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the conviction of the Appellant was justified based on the available evidence, given the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the lack of weapon recovery.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 354]* and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343]* were distinguished on facts, as they pertain to confession and/or admission, not witness testimony.
• Mrinal Das and Others v. State of Tripura [AIR 2011 SC 3753]* was followed to support the view that credible evidence of even hostile witnesses can form the basis of conviction.
• Navaneethakrishnan v. State By Inspector of Police [(2018) 16 SCC 161]* was referred to reaffirm the principle that every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence.
• Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2013) 14 SCC 434]*, Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2000 SC 3352]*, Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 10 SCC 433]*, Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 5 SCC 724]*, Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205]*, Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 5 SCC 100]*, Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 11 SCC 367]*, Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2010) 12 SCC 350]* and Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 9 SCC 561]* were relied upon to support the view that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not be given undue importance.
• Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646]* was cited to support that the court should examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statement along with the statement of other witnesses in order to arrive at a rational conclusion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Rati Pal (PW2) and Shreepal Singh (PW3), who placed the Appellant at the scene with a rifle. The Court acknowledged that while Mahendra Singh (PW4) did not specifically name the Appellant, his testimony did not contradict the other eyewitnesses. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements are common and should not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted that the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s version of events.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the main injured witness, Mahendra Singh, did not see the Appellant at the spot. However, the Court noted that no specific question was put to him as to whether the Appellant was present at the place of occurrence or not. The Court also considered the argument that the medical evidence did not show any injuries caused by a rifle, only by gun pellets. However, the Court noted that the tenor of the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem tends to support the case of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons, who were present, carrying arms had fired. The Court also considered the argument that the Trial Court based its conviction on assumptions, not evidence. However, the Court found that the Trial Court had relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The Court also considered the argument that the doctrine of severability does not apply in the case of a statement of a witness in a criminal trial. However, the Court held that credible evidence of even hostile witnesses can form the basis of conviction.

The Court rejected the argument that the Trial Court based its conviction on assumptions, stating that the Trial Court had relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The Court also rejected the argument that the doctrine of severability does not apply in the case of a statement of a witness in a criminal trial, holding that credible evidence of even hostile witnesses can form the basis of conviction. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.

The Court quoted from Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, stating: “The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness…”

The Court also quoted from Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, stating: “This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution.”

The Court further quoted from Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, stating: “It is a settled principle of law that the court should examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statement along with the statement of other witnesses in order to arrive at a rational conclusion.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench comprised two judges, both of whom agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate a conviction if the core facts are corroborated.
• The absence of weapon recovery does not negate the testimonies of eyewitnesses who identify the accused.
• Courts should focus on the overall credibility of evidence rather than minor inconsistencies.
• Concurrent findings of lower courts are given significant weight by the Supreme Court.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate a conviction if the core facts are corroborated by other evidence and that the absence of weapon recovery does not negate the testimonies of eyewitnesses who identify the accused. This case reaffirms the established principles of evidence evaluation in criminal trials, emphasizing that courts should focus on the overall credibility of evidence rather than minor inconsistencies. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Karan Singh. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the prosecution’s case if the core facts are corroborated. The Court also noted that the absence of weapon recovery does not negate the testimonies of eyewitnesses. This judgment reinforces the importance of evaluating the overall credibility of evidence in criminal trials.