LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the testimonies of the witnesses, despite some contradictions.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal
Case Name: Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu vs. State of Jharkhand
[Judgment Date]: March 1, 2021
Date of the Judgment: March 1, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 122
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Can minor contradictions in witness testimonies undermine a murder conviction, especially when the accused was absconding for a long time? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case involving a 1987 murder. The court examined whether the High Court of Jharkhand rightly upheld the conviction of an accused despite some discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Nirmal Mahto on August 8, 1987, in Jamshedpur. The informant, Suraj Mandal (P.W.27), along with Nirmal Mahto and others, had arrived in Jamshedpur the previous night to attend the last rites of Avtar Singh Tari’s mother. On the morning of August 8, 1987, while they were leaving the TISCO Guest House to go to Avtar Singh Tari’s house, a car arrived with five people. Nirmal Mahto identified two of them as Pandit and Pappu, brothers of Birendra Singh. Birendra Singh then shot Nirmal Mahto, who fell down. Pandit also attacked Nirmal Mahto with a firearm, and also injured the informant, Suraj Mandal. A case was registered against the accused under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later took over the investigation and filed a charge sheet against Birendra Singh, while the appellant and others were shown as absconders. Birendra Singh was convicted in a separate trial but died during the pendency of his appeal. After 13-15 years, the appellant, Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu, and another person surrendered/were arrested, leading to a supplementary charge sheet.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 7, 1987 | Suraj Mandal, Nirmal Mahto, and others arrive in Jamshedpur. |
| August 8, 1987, 11:45 AM | Nirmal Mahto is shot and killed; Suraj Mandal is injured. |
| August 8, 1987, 12:15 PM | Suraj Mandal gives Fardbeyan at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur. |
| Later | CBI takes over the investigation. |
| Later | Birendra Singh is convicted in a separate trial. |
| 13-15 Years After Incident | Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu surrenders/is arrested. |
| February 28, 2017 | High Court of Jharkhand dismisses Dhirendra Singh’s appeal. |
| March 1, 2021 | Supreme Court dismisses Dhirendra Singh’s appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant, Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu, for offenses under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand, which dismissed the appeal on February 28, 2017, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily concerns the application of the following legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines 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 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
- Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for using arms.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that there were significant contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.27 regarding the role and actions of the appellant.
- It was contended that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for Nirmal Mehto’s death or that he fired upon the deceased or the informant.
- The appellant pointed out that while the prosecution claimed there were five eyewitnesses, only three were examined. The other two were dropped because of contradictions in the depositions of P.W.7 and P.W.8.
- The appellant argued that there was no allegation of assault against him in the FIR, making his presence at the scene doubtful.
- It was also argued that no firearm was recovered from the appellant.
- The appellant highlighted that P.W.7, while naming the appellant, stated he could not say who injured the deceased.
- The appellant also contended that it was impossible for the injured informant (P.W.27) to write the Fardbeyan as he had sustained a firearm injury on his hand.
State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that there were no material contradictions in the depositions of P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.27 regarding the appellant’s presence and participation in the crime.
- The State submitted that the appellant had absconded for 13 to 15 years, and the depositions were recorded after 15 years, so some variations and contradictions were expected.
- The State emphasized that P.W.27 was an injured eyewitness who sustained a firearm injury, which was supported by medical evidence.
- The State argued that the appellant’s conviction was justified under Section 34 of the IPC, as his presence and participation were established.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Contradictions in Witness Testimony | Material contradictions regarding the role and actions of the appellant | Appellant |
| Prosecution dropped two witnesses due to contradictions | Appellant | |
| No material contradictions, minor variations due to time lapse | State | |
| P.W.7 could not identify who injured the deceased | Appellant | |
| Doubtful Presence and Participation | No allegation of assault against the appellant in the FIR | Appellant |
| Appellant absconded for 13-15 years | State | |
| Presence and participation established by witnesses | State | |
| Recovery of Firearm | No firearm recovered from the appellant | Appellant |
| Use of firearm by appellant established, non-recovery not a ground for acquittal | State | |
| Validity of Fardbeyan | Injured informant could not have written the Fardbeyan | Appellant |
| Injuries of Informant | Injuries sustained by informant were minor and he could have given Fardbeyan | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction. The Court found that the presence and active participation of the appellant were established by the testimonies of P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.27, despite minor contradictions. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had absconded for 15 years. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal texts in its judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the factual evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the application of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
| Authority | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code | Applied to determine the punishment for murder. |
| Section 34, Indian Penal Code | Applied to determine the joint liability of the accused. |
| Section 27, Arms Act | Applied to determine the punishment for using arms. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Material contradictions in witness testimonies | The Court acknowledged minor contradictions due to the time lapse but found the core testimonies consistent regarding the appellant’s presence and participation. |
| Doubtful presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime | The Court held that the presence of the appellant was established by the testimonies of the witnesses. |
| Non-recovery of firearm from the appellant | The Court stated that the non-recovery of the weapon was not a ground to acquit the accused when his presence and use of a firearm were established. |
| Impossibility of injured informant writing the Fardbeyan | The Court noted that the injuries sustained by the informant were minor, allowing him to give the Fardbeyan in writing. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code: The court applied this section to confirm the conviction of the appellant for murder.
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code: The court used this section to establish the appellant’s liability for the criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention. The Court held that the appellant was liable for the act as if it was done by him alone.
- Section 27, Arms Act: The court upheld the conviction for the use of firearms, stating that the non-recovery of the weapon did not negate the established fact of its use by the appellant.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.27, regarding the presence and active participation of the appellant in the crime. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the appellant had absconded for approximately 15 years, which explained minor contradictions in the testimonies. The court emphasized the credibility of P.W.27, the injured eyewitness, whose testimony was corroborated by medical evidence. The court also noted that the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which means that his presence and participation were crucial for the conviction. The non-recovery of the firearm was not considered a ground for acquittal because the use of a firearm by the appellant was established by the witnesses.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consistency of Witness Testimony | 40% |
| Absconding of the Accused | 25% |
| Credibility of Injured Eyewitness | 20% |
| Application of Section 34 IPC | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction?
Step 1: Review of Witness Testimonies (P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.27)
Step 2: Evaluation of Contradictions: Minor contradictions due to time lapse, core testimonies consistent
Step 3: Assessment of Appellant’s Presence and Participation: Established by witness testimonies
Step 4: Consideration of Absconding: Appellant absconded for 15 years, explaining minor contradictions
Step 5: Application of Section 34 IPC: Appellant’s presence and participation made him liable
Step 6: Conclusion: High Court’s decision upheld; conviction confirmed
The Court considered the arguments regarding the contradictions in the witness testimonies. It noted that while there were some minor contradictions, these were not material enough to undermine the core of the prosecution’s case. The Court also considered the argument that the informant could not have written the Fardbeyan due to his injury. However, it was noted that the injuries were minor and did not prevent him from writing. The Court also considered the fact that no firearm was recovered from the appellant. However, it was held that this was not a ground for acquittal since the use of a firearm by the appellant was established by the witnesses. The Court rejected the alternative interpretations presented by the appellant and upheld the conviction.
The Supreme Court stated, “There is no reason to doubt his presence at the time of incident as well as his deposition.” The court also noted, “Therefore, when the presence of the appellant-accused at the time of incident and his active participation has been established and proved, it cannot be said that both, the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed any error in convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.” Further, the court stated, “Merely because the weapon is not seized cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when his presence and his active participation and using firearm by him has been established and proved.”
Key Takeaways
- Minor contradictions in witness testimonies, especially after a long time, may not be sufficient to overturn a conviction if the core facts are consistent.
- The presence and active participation of an accused in a crime can be established through witness testimonies.
- The non-recovery of a weapon is not a ground for acquittal if the use of the weapon by the accused is established through evidence.
- The testimony of an injured eyewitness holds significant weight, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not undermine a conviction if the core facts are consistent and the presence and participation of the accused are established. The Court reiterated the principle that the non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground for acquittal, if the use of the weapon is established. This case reinforces the application of Section 34 of the IPC, which holds each person liable for a criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu for the murder of Nirmal Mehto. The court found that the testimonies of the witnesses, despite minor contradictions, established the appellant’s presence and active participation in the crime. The court also noted the appellant’s absconding for 15 years and the credibility of the injured eyewitness. This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent core facts in witness testimonies and the application of Section 34 of the IPC.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Murder
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code
- Section 27, Arms Act
- Witness Testimony
- Criminal Procedure
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Dhirendra Singh vs. State of Jharkhand case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of Dhirendra Singh despite some contradictions in the witness testimonies.
Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for murder, which includes death or life imprisonment and a fine.
Q: What is Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, making each person liable as if they did the act alone.
Q: What is Section 27 of the Arms Act?
A: Section 27 of the Arms Act deals with the punishment for using arms.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the contradictions in the witness testimonies?
A: The Supreme Court held that minor contradictions, especially after a long time, were not sufficient to overturn the conviction as the core facts were consistent.
Q: What was the significance of the injured eyewitness in the case?
A: The testimony of the injured eyewitness, P.W.27, was considered credible and was corroborated by medical evidence, which was crucial in establishing the appellant’s presence and participation in the crime.
Q: Can a person be convicted even if the weapon used in the crime is not recovered?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court stated that the non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground for acquittal if the use of the weapon by the accused is established through evidence.