LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was reliable and if the chain of custody of the bullet was properly established in an attempted murder case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat
Judgment Date: 18 June 2020
Date of the Judgment: 18 June 2020
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Indira Banerjee, J.
Can discrepancies in witness testimonies and minor procedural lapses undermine a conviction in a serious criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment concerning an attempted murder, where the key issues revolved around the reliability of eyewitness identification and the integrity of evidence handling. The Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the strength of eyewitness testimony and the overall consistency of the prosecution’s case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, with Justice Indira Banerjee authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On December 3, 2002, at approximately 4:45 p.m., Dr. Jaydeep Patel was traveling from his residence to his laboratory in his Indica car, driven by Jignesh G. Vyas. As the car slowed down to navigate a speed breaker near Galaxy Cinema, a motorcycle pulled up alongside the car. The pillion rider, later identified as Salim alias Salim Chaurala Yakubhai Patel, fired a pistol at Dr. Patel, hitting him in the face. The motorcycle was driven by the Appellant, Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh. Following the shooting, the victim was initially taken to a nearby hospital and subsequently to Sterling Hospital for treatment. The complainant, Jignesh G. Vyas, filed a complaint with the police, leading to an investigation.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| February 2002 | Godhra incident occurs, leading to communal riots in Ahmedabad. |
| 3 December 2002, 4:45 PM | Dr. Jaydeep Patel shot while traveling in his car near Galaxy Cinema. |
| 3 December 2002 | Jignesh G. Vyas files a complaint with the police. |
| 3 December 2002 | Dr. Jaydeep Patel receives initial treatment at Anand Surgical Hospital and is then transferred to Sterling Hospital. |
| 4 December 2002 | Dr. Jaydeep Patel undergoes surgery at Sterling Hospital to remove the bullet. |
| 11 December 2002 | Dr. Jaydeep Patel is discharged from Sterling Hospital. |
| 30 December 2002 | First accused, Salim alias Salim Chaurala Yakubhai Patel, is arrested. |
| 31 December 2002 | Appellant, Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh, is arrested. |
| 2 January 2003 | Identification parade of the first accused is held. |
| 4 January 2003 | Identification parade of the Appellant is held. |
| 5 January 2003 | Appellant confesses and leads police to the location of the weapons. |
| 18 January 2006 | Additional City Sessions Judge convicts the Appellant and the first accused. |
| 29 September 2015 | High Court of Gujarat dismisses the Appellant’s appeal but enhances the sentence. |
Course of Proceedings
The Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.6) at Ahmedabad City convicted the Appellant and the first accused under Section 307 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act read with Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Appellant’s appeal but partly allowed the State’s appeal, enhancing the sentence for the offense under Section 307/114 of the IPC from six to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:
- Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with attempt to murder. It states:
“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” - Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses abettor present when offense is committed. It states:
“Whenever any person, who, if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.” - Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act: Pertains to the possession of illegal arms.
- Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act: Relates to violations of police regulations.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The Test Identification Parade was conducted improperly, failing to establish the Appellant’s identity.
- The complainant could not have accurately identified the Appellant as he was wearing dark glasses and a cap, and the motorcycle was behind the car.
- The chain of custody of the bullet removed from the victim’s body was not established, raising doubts about the forensic evidence.
- The recovery of the weapon from an open ground, accessible to all, is unreliable.
- The prosecution failed to prove motive and conspiracy.
State’s Arguments:
- The Appellant was positively identified by both the victim and the complainant during the Test Identification Parade and in court.
- The testimony of the injured victim is sufficient for conviction.
- The recovery of the weapon was based on the Appellant’s confession and was corroborated by a Pancha witness.
- Minor discrepancies in evidence do not vitiate the conviction.
The arguments of the Appellant focused on the procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the evidence, while the State emphasized the strength of the eyewitness accounts and corroborating evidence.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Identification of the Appellant |
✓ Test Identification Parade was flawed. ✓ Complainant’s identification was unreliable due to circumstances. |
✓ Appellant was positively identified by victim and complainant. ✓ Test Identification Parade was valid. |
| Chain of Custody of Bullet | ✓ Chain of custody not established, questioning forensic evidence. | ✓ Sufficient evidence for conviction, minor lapses do not invalidate. |
| Recovery of Weapon | ✓ Recovery from an open place is unreliable. | ✓ Recovery was based on Appellant’s confession and corroborated by witness. |
| Motive and Conspiracy | ✓ Prosecution failed to prove motive and conspiracy. | ✓ Motive not essential when there are eyewitnesses. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- Whether the identification of the Appellant by the eyewitnesses was reliable and admissible.
- Whether the chain of custody of the bullet was properly established.
- Whether the recovery of the weapon was valid and could be relied upon.
- Whether the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events linking the crime to the Appellant.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitness Identification | Upheld | Both the victim and the complainant positively identified the Appellant in the Test Identification Parade and in court. Minor discrepancies were not significant enough to discredit their testimony. |
| Chain of Custody of Bullet | Upheld | While there were minor lapses, the overall evidence supported the fact that the bullet recovered from the victim was the same one sent for forensic examination. |
| Validity of Weapon Recovery | Upheld | The weapon was recovered based on the Appellant’s confession and corroborated by a Pancha witness. The location was not deemed an open place accessible to all. |
| Chain of Events Linking Crime to Appellant | Upheld | The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events linking the crime to the Appellant, despite minor discrepancies. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Iqbal and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2015) 6 SCC 623] | Supreme Court of India | The Court acknowledged the principle that a conviction based on erroneous identification cannot be sustained, but distinguished this case, stating that the identification was not erroneous. |
| Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of U.P [(2003) 5 SCC 499] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court held that in this case, the recovery of the weapon was not from an open place accessible to all. |
| Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others v. State of Jammu & kashmir [(2002) 8 SCC 45] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court held that in this case, the recovery of the weapon was not from an open place accessible to all. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies, the recovery of the weapon, and the forensic evidence, despite minor discrepancies, were sufficient to establish the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission on flawed Test Identification Parade | Rejected. The Court found the identification parade valid, and the identification by the witnesses credible. |
| Appellant’s submission on unreliable identification by the complainant | Rejected. The Court held that the complainant’s identification was reliable despite the circumstances. |
| Appellant’s submission on the chain of custody of the bullet | Rejected. The Court found sufficient evidence to link the bullet to the crime. |
| Appellant’s submission on unreliable recovery of the weapon | Rejected. The Court held the recovery was valid, based on the Appellant’s confession and corroborated by a witness. |
| Appellant’s submission on failure to prove motive and conspiracy | Rejected. The Court stated that motive is not essential when there are eyewitnesses. |
| State’s submission on the positive identification of the Appellant | Accepted. The Court found the identification by the victim and complainant to be credible. |
| State’s submission on the recovery of the weapon | Accepted. The Court found the recovery valid, based on the Appellant’s confession and corroborated by a witness. |
| State’s submission on the minor discrepancies in evidence | Accepted. The Court held that minor discrepancies do not invalidate the conviction. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Iqbal and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2015) 6 SCC 623]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the identification was not erroneous.
- Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of U.P [(2003) 5 SCC 499]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the recovery of the weapon was not from an open place accessible to all.
- Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others v. State of Jammu & kashmir [(2002) 8 SCC 45]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the recovery of the weapon was not from an open place accessible to all.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Eyewitness Testimony: The consistent and credible testimonies of the victim and the complainant, who both identified the Appellant, were crucial.
- Corroborating Evidence: The recovery of the weapon based on the Appellant’s confession and the forensic evidence linking the bullet to the recovered weapon provided strong corroboration.
- Chain of Events: The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events linking the crime to the Appellant, despite minor discrepancies.
- Minor Discrepancies: The Court held that minor discrepancies in the evidence and procedural lapses did not undermine the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Eyewitness Testimony | 40% |
| Corroborating Evidence | 30% |
| Chain of Events | 20% |
| Minor Discrepancies | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles, with a slightly greater emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.
Key Takeaways
- Eyewitness testimony, when consistent and credible, can be a strong basis for conviction.
- Corroborating evidence, such as weapon recovery and forensic reports, strengthens the prosecution’s case.
- Minor discrepancies in evidence or procedural lapses do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the overall evidence is compelling.
- The chain of custody of evidence, while important, should not be used to undermine a case if there is sufficient other evidence to establish the link.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that consistent and credible eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborating evidence, can lead to a conviction even if there are minor discrepancies in the evidence or procedural lapses. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the case reinforces the importance of considering the totality of evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat reaffirms the importance of eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence in criminal cases. The Court’s decision underscores that minor discrepancies should not overshadow the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. The conviction of the Appellant was upheld, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice while adhering to established legal principles.