Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1999 Murder Case: Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 May 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 May 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 432

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Majority opinion by Sanjiv Khanna, J.)

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when there is a delay in reporting the crime to the magistrate and when eyewitness accounts have minor inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a 1999 murder. The court examined whether the delay in submitting the First Information Report (FIR) and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies were substantial enough to overturn the conviction of the accused.

The Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the conviction of Ombir Singh for the murder of Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria, affirming the decisions of the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court. The judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Sanjiv Khanna, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna authoring the opinion, focused on the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the impact of procedural delays in the criminal justice system.

Case Background

On July 15, 1999, at approximately 9:00 AM, Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria, also known as Munna, was fatally shot near the residence of Shivraj Singh Sengar. The incident occurred when Abhaiveer, along with his brother Dinesh Singh (PW-1), and their friend Mukesh Singh (PW-2), were walking towards Shivraj Singh Sengar’s house. According to the eyewitness accounts, Abhaiveer was ahead of Dinesh and Mukesh when he was confronted by Ombir Singh, along with others, who opened fire, leading to Abhaiveer’s death.

The primary witnesses in this case were Dinesh Singh (PW-1), the brother of the deceased, and Mukesh Singh (PW-2), who were present at the scene of the crime. They testified that they saw Ombir Singh and others fire upon Abhaiveer. The prosecution argued that the murder was a result of personal and political rivalry. Ombir Singh was convicted by the Trial Court, a decision which was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. Ombir Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Ombir Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. However, the Trial Court acquitted Pramod Singh, who was also accused in the case, due to lack of evidence. The Trial Court’s decision was appealed to the Allahabad High Court.

The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, relying on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and the circumstances of the case. Subsequently, Ombir Singh appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the 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 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses 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, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for using arms.
• Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section mandates that the officer in charge of a police station shall forthwith send a report of the FIR to the Magistrate.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the eyewitnesses, Dinesh Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Singh (PW-2), were unreliable and had been “planted” by the prosecution.
• It was contended that the eyewitnesses did not see the field unit taking photographs at the crime scene, despite the field unit’s presence being confirmed by Court Witnesses (CW-2 and CW-3).
• The appellant highlighted the 11-day delay in sending the FIR to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, arguing that this delay indicated the FIR was ante-timed.
• The appellant also contended that the FIR was not sent to Dr. Balbeer Singh (PW-3) along with the inquest papers, further questioning its authenticity.
• The appellant pointed out that the Trial Court had acquitted Pramod Singh, who was also allegedly present at the scene, based on the same witness testimonies, thus raising doubts about the credibility of the witnesses.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, citing previous judgments that held that unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the delay cannot be a ground for acquittal.
• The State contended that the testimonies of Dinesh Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Singh (PW-2) were consistent and reliable, and that they had correctly identified the appellant.
• The State pointed to the fact that clothes worn by the eyewitnesses had traces of human blood, corroborating their presence at the scene of the crime.
• The State submitted that the testimony of Head Constable Maujan Singh (PW-6) confirmed that the appellant was not at his residence on the morning of the incident, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.
• The State explained that the acquittal of Pramod Singh was due to the lack of evidence of his use of a country-made revolver, and that this did not affect the case against the appellant.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the delay in compliance with Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically the 11-day delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, is a sufficient ground to acquit the appellant.
2. Whether the alleged unreliability of the eyewitnesses, Dinesh Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Singh (PW-2), due to minor inconsistencies in their testimonies and their failure to acknowledge the presence of the field unit, warrants the acquittal of the appellant.
3. Whether the acquittal of Pramod Singh by the Trial Court, based on the same eyewitness testimonies, casts doubt on the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution’s case against the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of Ombir Singh.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal [ (2019) 12 SCC 560 ]* to reiterate that a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate is not a sufficient ground for acquittal unless prejudice is demonstrated.
• The Court cited State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan [ (2016) 2 SCC 607 ]* to emphasize that the accused must show prejudice caused by the delayed dispatch of the FIR.
• The Court relied on Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2013) 12 SCC 539 ]* to highlight that mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not invalidate the prosecution’s case unless prejudice is proven.
• The Court cited Sandeep v. State of U.P. [ (2012) 6 SCC 107 ]* to support the view that if the FIR was recorded without delay and the investigation commenced, then the delay in sending the report to the Magistrate does not invalidate the prosecution.
• The Court referred to Pala Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1972) 2 SCC 640 ]* to explain that if the FIR was recorded without delay and the investigation started, the delay in its receipt by the Magistrate, in the absence of prejudice to the accused, does not invalidate the prosecution.
• The Court mentioned Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1976) 4 SCC 369 ]*, Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [ (2001) 7 SCC 318 ]* and Aqeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. [ (2008) 16 SCC 372 ]* as cases that followed the ratio laid down in Pala Singh v. State of Punjab.
• The Court cited Sudarshan v. State of Maharashtra [ (2014) 12 SCC 312 ]* to emphasize that the dispatch of a copy of the FIR “forthwith” ensures that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR.
• The Court referred to Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [ (1994) 5 SCC 188 ]* to state that if there is a delay in the dispatch of FIR, the prosecution is required to provide an explanation.
• The Court cited Rattiram v. State of M.P. [ (2013) 12 SCC 316 ]* to state that if the court is convinced of the prosecution’s version and the trustworthiness of the witnesses, the absence of an explanation for the delay may not be detrimental to the prosecution’s case.
• The Court referred to Anjan Dasgupta v. State of W.B. [ (2017) 11 SCC 222 ]* to reiterate that mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not lead to the conclusion that the FIR was registered much later than shown.
• The Court cited Rabindra Mahto v. State of Jharkhand [ (2006) 10 SCC 432 ]* to support the view that a mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not imply that the FIR was registered much later than shown.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies and the lack of demonstrated prejudice due to the delay in submitting the FIR. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness statements are common and do not necessarily undermine their credibility. The Court also highlighted the corroborative evidence of bloodstains on the eyewitnesses’ clothing and the testimony of Head Constable Maujan Singh.

The Court’s reasoning was also based on the principle that procedural lapses, such as the delay in sending the FIR, should not automatically result in the acquittal of the accused unless it is shown that such lapses caused prejudice to the defense. The Court relied on a consistent line of precedents that supported this view.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate and the minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts could indicate that the FIR was ante-timed and that the witnesses were unreliable. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the delay in sending the FIR did not cause any prejudice to the accused, and the minor inconsistencies in the witness testimonies were not significant enough to undermine their credibility.

The Court also addressed the issue of the acquittal of Pramod Singh, explaining that his acquittal was based on the lack of evidence of his use of a firearm and that this did not affect the case against Ombir Singh, who was convicted based on sufficient evidence.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring in the judgment.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The prime arguments on behalf of the appellant are that the alleged eye-witnesses Dinesh Singh, the original complainant and brother of the deceased Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria @ Munna, who has deposed as PW-1, and Mukesh Singh (PW-2) are unreliable, and they had been set-up and planted by the prosecution.”

“Therefore, delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant. Albeit, this fact has to be considered when we examine the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses; in this case, the testimonies of Dinesh Singh (PW-1) and Mukesh Singh (PW-2).”

“In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) highlights the importance of eyewitness testimony and the principle that procedural delays should not automatically lead to the acquittal of an accused unless prejudice is demonstrated. The Court upheld the conviction of Ombir Singh, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not necessarily undermine their credibility. The judgment also underscored the need for a holistic assessment of evidence, including corroborative elements and the circumstances of the case.

The Court’s decision reaffirms the legal principle that a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, while a matter of concern, is not fatal to the prosecution’s case unless it can be shown that the delay prejudiced the accused. The Court also clarified that the acquittal of a co-accused based on a lack of specific evidence does not invalidate the case against another accused when sufficient evidence exists. The judgment serves as a reminder that the courts must focus on the substance of the evidence and the reliability of the witnesses rather than being overly concerned with minor procedural irregularities.