Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bihar MLA Murder Case: Rama Devi vs. State of Bihar (2024) INSC 755 (3 October 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction of the accused for murder and other offenses.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Rama Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others
Judgment Date: 3 October 2024

Date of the Judgment: 3 October 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 755

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., Sanjay Kumar, J., and R. Mahadevan, J. The judgment was authored by Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can the testimony of witnesses be disregarded if they have a criminal history or if there are minor discrepancies in their statements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the murder of a Bihar Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The Court examined the evidence and arguments to determine whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and R. Mahadevan, delivered the judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Brij Bihari Prasad, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, and his bodyguard, Lakshmeshwar Sahu. The incident occurred on June 13, 1998, at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science (IGIMS) in Patna, where Brij Bihari Prasad was admitted for treatment while in judicial custody.

According to the prosecution, Brij Bihari Prasad was taking a walk outside the wardroom around 6:30 PM, accompanied by several people, including his bodyguard Lakshmeshwar Sahu. Two vehicles, a Sumo and an Ambassador car, entered the hospital premises and stopped near Brij Bihari Prasad. Occupants of these cars, including Mantu Tiwari, Vijay Kumar Shukla, and others, emerged and opened fire, killing both Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu.

The prosecution presented several eyewitnesses, but some turned hostile. The trial court convicted nine accused based on the testimonies of a few key witnesses. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna reversed the trial court’s decision, acquitting all the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, relying on the testimonies of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42), and Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), convicted nine accused. However, the High Court reversed this decision, citing several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence. The High Court questioned the credibility of key witnesses, the timing of the FIR, and the overall investigation.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Arms Act, 1959. The key provisions are:

• Section 302 of the IPC: 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 307 of the IPC: This section deals with the 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 34 of the 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 333 of the IPC: This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from his duty.
• Section 355 of the IPC: This section deals with assault or criminal force with intent to dishonor a person.
• Section 379 of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for theft.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for using arms.

These sections are applied within the framework of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court’s interpretation of these laws ensures that justice is served while upholding constitutional principles.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides focused on the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the validity of the evidence.

• Prosecution’s Arguments:
  • The prosecution argued that the testimonies of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25), and Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), along with the fardbeyan (Exhibit 50), clearly implicated the accused.
  • They contended that the High Court erred in dismissing the eyewitness accounts based on minor discrepancies and the criminal background of some witnesses.
  • The prosecution highlighted the motive, emphasizing the political rivalry between the deceased and the accused.
  • They also pointed to the recovery of empty cartridges and the presence of multiple gunshot wounds as evidence of the crime.
• Defense’s Arguments:
  • The defense argued that the FIR was ante-timed and that the key witnesses were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased or their criminal backgrounds.
  • They pointed out contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, particularly regarding the presence of Rajan Tiwari (A-9) at the scene.
  • The defense also questioned the absence of recovery of the vehicles and weapons used in the crime.
  • They argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against all the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction of the accused based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were credible and reliable.
3. Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy was proven against all the accused.
4. Whether the failure to recover the weapons and vehicles used in the crime weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities while reaching its decision:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Deep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana (1969) 3 SCC 890 and Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 640 to clarify that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law but a rule of caution. The Court also cited State of U.P. v. Farid Khan and Others (2005) 9 SCC 103 to emphasize that a witness’s criminal background does not automatically discredit their testimony. Additionally, the Court referred to C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 to support the view that the testimony of a hostile witness should not be completely rejected. The Court also relied on Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Others (2017) 11 SCC 195 and State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others (2011) 9 SCC 115 to state that the absence of recovery of weapons does not undermine the ocular evidence. Finally, the Court cited State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan (2016) 2 SCC 607 to state that delay in forwarding the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credible eyewitness accounts of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) and Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25). The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies and the criminal background of a witness should not automatically invalidate their testimony. The Court also considered the motive behind the crime, which was rooted in political rivalry. The Court’s reasoning focused on separating the truth from falsehood in the evidence, ensuring that justice was served based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the eyewitness testimonies and the established motive, while legal principles were applied to interpret the evidence and ensure a fair trial.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the High Court’s view that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was ante-timed. However, the Supreme Court rejected these interpretations, finding that the High Court had erred in dismissing the credible evidence. The Court’s final decision was based on a careful evaluation of all the evidence, applying legal principles to ensure a just outcome.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla (A-8) for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and for attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 each for murder and rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 20,000 each for attempt to murder. The sentences are to run concurrently. The Court also directed that in case of non-payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The Court acquitted Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Mukesh Singh (A-2), Lallan Singh (A-3), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), and Rajan Tiwari (A-9), giving them the benefit of the doubt.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The criminal background of a witness necessitates that the courts approach their evidence with caution. The testimony of a witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene of the offence.”

“The crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and whether their testimony is credible. If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be relied upon. Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of criminal background.”

“The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is an external check against ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. If the court finds the witnesses to be truthful and credible, the lack of a cogent explanation for the delay may not be regarded as detrimental.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring on the final outcome.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the testimony of eyewitnesses should not be discarded solely based on minor discrepancies or their criminal backgrounds.
• The Court reiterated that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law and should not be applied rigidly.
• The Court clarified that a delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution case unless it prejudices the accused.
• The Court highlighted that non-recovery of weapons and vehicles does not undermine credible eyewitness accounts.
• The Court upheld the conviction of Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla (A-8) for murder and attempt to murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla (A-8) to surrender within two weeks to the concerned jail authorities/court to serve the remainder of their sentences. In case of failure to surrender, the authorities were directed to arrest and detain them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of eyewitnesses, even if they have a criminal background or there are minor discrepancies in their statements, should not be discarded if their presence at the scene of the crime is established and their core testimony is credible. This judgment reinforces the principle that the courts must carefully scrutinize evidence and separate truth from falsehood, ensuring that justice is served based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rama Devi vs. State of Bihar partially overturns the High Court’s decision, upholding the conviction of Mantu Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Shukla for the murder of Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu. The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of credible eyewitness testimony, even when there are minor discrepancies or the witnesses have a criminal background. The judgment also clarifies that procedural delays and non-recovery of evidence do not automatically invalidate a prosecution’s case.