Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1982 Murder Case: Ramji Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: December 11, 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta
Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s acquittal based on a different interpretation of the evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a 1982 murder case, focusing on the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the interpretation of medical evidence. The Court examined whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s decision and convicting the accused. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Sarman Singh, who was killed on June 17, 1982. The sequence of events began when Sarman Singh was ploughing his field and was confronted by Lakhan Singh (A-1), who verbally abused him and threatened him not to till the land. Sarman Singh retorted that the land did not belong to Lakhan Singh’s father and that he would not allow Lakhan Singh to cultivate it. This led to a heated exchange between the two. Following this, Sarman Singh went to get his agricultural implement repaired, accompanied by Babu Ram (PW-1). While on the way, Sarman Singh went to collect money from Dasharath Singh, while Babu Ram went to the carpenter.

While Sarman Singh was in the courtyard of Dasharath Singh’s house, he was attacked by Lakhan Singh (A-1), Ramji Singh (A-2), Krishna Autar (A-3), Laxman Singh (A-4), Lala Ram (A-5), and Virendra Singh (A-6). Lakhan Singh (A-1) instigated the others to kill Sarman Singh. Ramji Singh (A-2) and Krishna Autar (A-3) fired guns, while the others attacked with axes and a pitchfork. Sarman Singh died on the spot. Babu Ram (PW-1), along with other villagers, witnessed the attack. The accused threatened the villagers and then fled. Babu Ram (PW-1) then filed a written complaint, which was recorded as Crime No. 66/82 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, citing discrepancies between medical and oral evidence, withholding of material witnesses, lack of independent witnesses, unproven motive, and the interested nature of the witnesses. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, three of the accused, Lakhan Singh (A-1), Krishna Autar (A-3), and Virendra Singh (A-6), died, and the appeal abated against them. The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, finding no material contradiction between medical and eyewitness evidence, and convicted Ramji Singh (A-2), Laxman Singh (A-4), and Lala Ram (A-5) under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The convicted accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for rioting.” This section deals with the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.” This section addresses rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” This section deals with the concept of vicarious liability in unlawful assemblies.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.” This section deals with house-trespass after preparation for causing hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.

The case also references Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relates to the procedure for investigation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The medical evidence contradicts the eyewitness testimony, casting doubt on the presence of Babu Ram (PW-1) and Nand Kishore (PW-2) at the scene.
• There are significant contradictions in the statements of Babu Ram (PW-1) and Nand Kishore (PW-2), making their version unreliable.
• Babu Ram (PW-1) and Nand Kishore (PW-2) are related to the deceased and are therefore interested witnesses, whose testimony should not be relied upon.
• The FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated, as evidenced by the delay in delivering the special report.
• Material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, and the ballistic report was not proven.
• The Trial Court’s view was a probable one and should not have been disturbed by the High Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Trial Court’s view was perverse, and there is no contradiction between the medical and ocular evidence.
• The time of recording of the FIR is correct and supported by evidence.
• All material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
• The High Court was correct in setting aside the perverse judgment of the Trial Court.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants argued that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version, which was a technical argument based on the direction of injuries and the site map. The respondent countered this by stating that the site plan is not a true to scale map and the direction of the injuries can vary.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether reliance should be placed on the statements of the eye witnesses.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular evidence.

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:

• Meharaj Singh (L/NK) vs. State of U.P. [1994] 5 SCC 188: The court held that this judgment cited by the appellants had no application to the facts of the present case.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Meharaj Singh (L/NK) vs. State of U.P. [1994] 5 SCC 188: The Court held that this case was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistency and corroboration between the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence. The Court noted that the written complaint was recorded immediately after the incident, which reduced the possibility of concoction. The Court also emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements are common and should not discredit their entire testimony. The Court also considered the fact that the accused were not scared of the villagers and had threatened them, which explained why no other villagers came forward to give evidence. The Court also noted that the Trial Court had misdirected itself in holding that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence.

The Court found that the High Court had correctly overturned the Trial Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version, but rejected it, stating that the site plan was not a true to scale map and the direction of the injuries can vary. The Court also considered the argument that the witnesses were interested, but rejected it, stating that the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be discarded if it is otherwise credible. The Court also considered the argument that the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated, but rejected it, stating that the complaint was recorded immediately after the incident and the FIR was based on the complaint.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the High Court was correct in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court found that the eyewitness accounts were consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and the complaint was recorded immediately after the incident. The Court also held that the Trial Court had misdirected itself in holding that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In our opinion, the complaint (Exh. P.1) is complete and the additions, if any, made during the evidence are not such which cast a doubt on the correctness of the complaint.”
• “On careful analysis of the medical evidence we find it fully corroborates the prosecution story.”
• “In our opinion merely because these witnesses are interested witnesses their testimony cannot be discarded.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the consistency and corroboration between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence.
• Minor discrepancies in witness statements should not discredit their entire testimony.
• The testimony of interested witnesses cannot be discarded if it is otherwise credible.
• The timing of the FIR and the written complaint is important in determining the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
• Trial Courts should not rely on technicalities to discard credible evidence.

This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts can overturn acquittals by trial courts if the trial court’s findings are based on a misdirection of facts or law. It also highlights the importance of a holistic view of evidence, where ocular and medical evidence are considered together.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court was correct in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. This case reinforces the principle that appellate courts can overturn acquittals by trial courts if the trial court’s findings are based on a misdirection of facts or law. There was no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence. The Court found that the High Court was correct in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. This case underscores the importance of a comprehensive assessment of evidence and the role of appellate courts in correcting errors made by trial courts.