Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1980 Murder Case: Shio Shankar Dubey vs. State of Bihar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 462

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a conviction be sustained when the primary witnesses are relatives of the deceased, and there are discrepancies between the inquest and post-mortem reports? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a 1980 murder case. The Court examined the High Court of Patna’s decision to uphold the conviction of the appellants, focusing on the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and the significance of the inconsistencies in the medical reports. Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, forming the bench, delivered the judgment, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On May 16, 1980, Raj Ballam Rai and his brother Raj Keshwar Singh were traveling to their residence near Dharamshala after finishing work at the Sasaram Court. Raj Keshwar Singh was on a rickshaw, while Raj Ballam Rai followed on a bicycle. Near Kargahar More, they were ambushed by Doodnath Dusadh, Jamadar Dusadh, and Ram Nandan Dusadh, who were armed with Lohbandas. Shio Shankar Dubey, armed with a rifle, and Ram Pravesh Dubey, armed with a lathi, also joined the assault. The attackers pulled Raj Keshwar Singh from the rickshaw and began assaulting him. Shio Shankar Dubey ordered the others to kill him quickly. Raj Ballam Rai escaped and Shio Shankar Dubey fired a shot, though no one was hit. The assailants then fled. Raj Ballam Rai reported the incident to the police at 9:30 am, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against five accused individuals.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted four accused on September 14, 1990. Shio Shankar Dubey was convicted under Sections 302/149/148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Ram Pravesh Dubey was convicted under Sections 302/149/147 of the IPC. Jamadar Dusadh was convicted under Sections 302/147 and 379 of the IPC. The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court of Patna, which dismissed their appeal on July 16, 2013. One of the accused, Ramnandan Dusadh, died during the pendency of the appeal. The three surviving accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the concept of common intention in an unlawful assembly. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.
• Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for theft.

Additionally, Section 27 of the Arms Act was also invoked against Shio Shankar Dubey. The case also touches on the principles of evidence, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses and the evaluation of medical evidence.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the primary witnesses, PW11 (the informant and brother of the deceased) and PW13 (husband of the niece of the deceased), were close relatives and therefore “interested” witnesses, whose testimony should not be relied upon without independent corroboration.
• It was contended that PW5, another eyewitness, did not mention Ram Pravesh Dubey’s name while describing the fleeing accused, thus casting doubt on his presence at the scene.
• The appellants pointed out discrepancies between the inquest report, which mentioned a bullet injury, and the post-mortem report, which found no such injury, arguing that this inconsistency undermines the prosecution’s case.
• The appellants argued that there was no motive for them to kill Raj Keshwar Singh.

State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the relationship of PW11 and PW13 to the deceased does not make them untrustworthy. The State contended that their evidence was credible and consistent.
• The State submitted that the mention of a bullet injury in the inquest report was an error in judgment by the officer who prepared it, based on the nature of the head injuries. The State argued that the skull fracture and other injuries were consistent with the prosecution’s case.
• The State contended that PW5 was a trustworthy witness who saw the accused fleeing and that the absence of Ram Pravesh Dubey’s name in his testimony does not negate his involvement.
• The State pointed out that the motive was established by the fact that Shio Shankar Dubey was angry with the deceased because his nephew contested election against him.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court erred in relying on the testimony of related witnesses.
2. Whether the High Court erred in upholding the conviction despite inconsistencies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report.
3. Whether the absence of Ram Pravesh Dubey’s name in PW5’s testimony is sufficient to doubt his presence at the scene.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 – The Supreme Court of India held that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness.
• Dalbir Kaur (Mst) v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158 – The Supreme Court of India observed that a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness.
• Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 – The Supreme Court of India held that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted.
• Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 – The Supreme Court of India reiterated that a close relative cannot be characterized as an “interested” witness and is a “natural” witness.
• Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 – The Supreme Court of India held that it was a fallacy common to many criminal cases that the testimony of close relatives should be discarded.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the concept of common intention in an unlawful assembly. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.
• Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for theft.

[TABLE] of 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 Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614* to emphasize that close relatives are natural witnesses and not necessarily interested witnesses.
• The Court followed Dalbir Kaur (Mst) v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158* to support the view that close relatives are natural witnesses.
• The Court used Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364* to emphasize that a witness is considered independent unless there is a reason to believe they are tainted.
• The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150*, that a close relative cannot be characterized as an “interested” witness and is a “natural” witness.
• The Court followed the ratio of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54* to dispel the fallacy that the testimony of close relatives should be discarded.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts of PW11 and PW13, who were present at the scene of the crime. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that these witnesses were related to the deceased did not diminish their credibility. The Court also took into account the prompt reporting of the incident and the sequence of events, which did not allow for any fabrication or false implication of the accused. The medical evidence, despite the discrepancy in the inquest report, was deemed consistent with the prosecution’s case, as the nature of injuries indicated assault with blunt weapons.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning involved a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The Court closely examined the factual evidence, including the eyewitness accounts, the sequence of events, and the medical reports. The legal aspect involved interpreting the principles of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The Court emphasized that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely based on their relationship with the deceased, and that the medical evidence, despite some inconsistencies, was consistent with the prosecution’s case. The Court also relied on established legal precedents to support its findings.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, particularly regarding the inconsistencies in the medical reports. However, it rejected these interpretations, concluding that the inconsistencies were due to an error in judgment by the officer who prepared the inquest report, and that the overall evidence supported the prosecution’s case. The Court’s decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and a consistent application of legal principles.

The Court upheld the convictions of the appellants, stating, “The prosecution case in the present case being fully proved against the accused, the eyewitness account of PW11, who was accompanying the deceased has given the eyewitness account of the entire incident.” The Court also noted, “The names of all the five accused and role attributed to them have been promptly recorded by the police officials within half an hour of the incident on the spot.” Furthermore, the Court observed, “The medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence.” The Court found no error in the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of close relatives can be reliable and credible, and their evidence should not be discarded solely based on their relationship with the victim.
• Minor inconsistencies in medical reports, such as an error in the inquest report, do not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case if the overall evidence is consistent.
• Prompt reporting of an incident and a clear sequence of events can be crucial in establishing the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
• The absence of a name in one witness’s testimony does not necessarily invalidate the presence of that person if other evidence supports their involvement.
• The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the entire body of evidence and not focusing on isolated discrepancies.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case reinforces the principle that close relatives are natural witnesses and their testimony should be evaluated based on its intrinsic credibility, not merely on their relationship with the victim. The judgment also clarifies that minor inconsistencies in medical reports do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution’s case if other evidence supports it. This case does not introduce any new legal principle but reaffirms existing legal positions on the reliability of witnesses and the evaluation of evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions of the appellants. The Court found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable, despite their relationship to the deceased, and that the discrepancies in the medical reports did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the prompt reporting of the incident and the consistent evidence presented by the prosecution.