Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Caste-Based Murder Case: Mahendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu (21 February 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 160

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a group of individuals be held responsible for murder even if not all of them directly participated in the killing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a brutal caste-based murder. The court examined whether the accused individuals shared a common objective, thereby making them equally culpable for the crime.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment. Justice Hemant Gupta authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on March 13, 1994, in Neikuppai village, Tamil Nadu. The prosecution’s case was initiated based on a statement by PW1-Ganesamoorthy, the son-in-law of the deceased, Murugaiyan. Ganesamoorthy stated that on March 12, 1994, he and his father stayed at Murugaiyan’s house. That evening, Murugaiyan discussed a dispute with Caste Hindus, which had escalated, including the burning of a thatched hut in the Pilaiyar street.

On March 13, 1994, at approximately 7:30 AM, Ganesamoorthy and Murugaiyan went outside after hearing a commotion. They saw A-1 to A-9 and Balakrishnan (who later died) armed with stones and sickles. The group threatened Murugaiyan and set fire to his hut. Murugaiyan tried to escape but was attacked with sickles, sustaining fatal injuries. Ganesamoorthy, along with PW2-Raja and PW3-Ramesh, also sustained injuries while trying to escape.

Based on Ganesamoorthy’s statement, FIR was lodged at 8:45 AM against ten accused. The police investigation led to the arrest of the accused and the recovery of weapons. The post-mortem report revealed that Murugaiyan died due to severe injuries to his neck and other parts of his body.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found Accused Nos. 1-10 and 12-15 guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment. However, Accused Nos. 11, and 16-24 were acquitted. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the convictions of some of the accused, while acquitting Accused Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15, granting them the benefit of doubt.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

The court also considered Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object such as to overawe by criminal force, to resist the execution of any law, or to commit any mischief or criminal trespass.

Arguments

The appellants argued that PW1-Ganesamoorthy was not a reliable witness and was not present at the scene of the crime. They pointed out inconsistencies in his statements, including the fact that he did not initially mention his injuries in the FIR. They also argued that the FIR was ante-timed and that the place of occurrence was not accurately identified.

The appellants also contended that the prosecution witnesses had implicated many individuals who were later acquitted, thus questioning their credibility. They further argued that the recovery of weapons was based on a single disclosure statement and that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s timeline.

The appellants relied on judgments such as Ram Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 12 SCC 389, Noushad alias Noushad Pasha and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 513, and Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725, to argue that if a witness is found unreliable in part, their entire testimony should be rejected. They also argued that the prosecution failed to prove the common object necessary to invoke Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that only A-1 and A-2 should be held liable for murder.

The State argued that the discrepancies in the place of occurrence were minor and that the witnesses’ injuries were consistent with their statements. They contended that the medical examination was conducted at the earliest opportunity and that the delay in delivering the FIR to the magistrate was explained. The State cited Gangadhar Behera and Others Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 69 to argue that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India and that the common object of the unlawful assembly was proven.

The State contended that the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime and their participation in the attack were established by the evidence. They argued that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to attack and kill Murugaiyan, and that all members of the assembly were liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the testimony of PW1-Ganesamoorthy is reliable and if the FIR was ante-timed.
2. Whether the place of occurrence was accurately identified.
3. Whether the prosecution witnesses were credible, considering that some accused were acquitted.
4. Whether the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” applies to this case.
5. Whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was proven to invoke Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following provisions of law:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object.
• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Definition of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Ram Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 12 SCC 389*: The court distinguished this case, stating that the witness in the present case was reliable, unlike in the cited case.

✓ Noushad alias Noushad Pasha and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 513*: The court distinguished this case, stating that the witness was not credible in the cited case, unlike in the present case.

✓ Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725*: The court distinguished this case, noting that it pertained to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

✓ Gangadhar Behera and Others Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381*: The court relied on this case to support its position that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India and that the common object is not common intention.

✓ Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 69*: The court relied on this case to support its position that Section 149 has two components and that common object does not require prior concert.

✓ State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277*: The court relied on this case to support the position that even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained.

✓ Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76*: The court relied on this case to support the position that even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained.

✓ Nisar Alli v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 366*: The court relied on this case to support the position that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is merely a rule of caution.

✓ Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 460*: The court relied on this case to support the position that it is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted.

✓ Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972) 3 SCC 751*: The court relied on this case to support the position that witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main.

✓ Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277*: The court relied on this case to support the position that witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main.

✓ Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 15*: The court relied on this case to support the position that where it is not feasible to separate the truth from falsehood, the evidence in toto has to be discarded.

✓ Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511*: The court relied on this case to support the position that where it is not feasible to separate the truth from falsehood, the evidence in toto has to be discarded.

✓ State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752*: The court relied on this case to support the position that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time.

✓ Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 81*: The court relied on this case to support the position that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time.

✓ Joseph vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police (2018) 12 SCC 283*: The court relied on this case to support the position that if the prosecution succeeds in improving the existence of common object amongst the accused and that accused actuated the prosecution of common object and knew that the death was likely to be committed, the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with 149 is made out.

✓ Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Others (2017) 3 SCC 261*: The court distinguished this case, noting that there was no evidence of common object in the cited case.

✓ Masalti case AIR 1965 SC 202*: The court relied on this case to support the position that where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants.

✓ Lalji v. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437*: The court relied on this case to support the position that common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence.

✓ State of U.P. v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747*: The court relied on this case to support the position that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act.

✓ Kamaksha Rai case (1999) 8 SCC 701*: The court distinguished this case, stating that the decision was rendered in a different factual scenario altogether.

✓ Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. (2002) 3 SCC 533*: The court relied on this case to support the position that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The court was influenced by several key factors in reaching its decision. Firstly, the consistency of the eyewitness testimony, despite minor discrepancies, played a significant role. The court found that the core narrative of the incident was consistently presented by the witnesses, and the minor variations were attributable to normal human errors.

Secondly, the court carefully examined the evidence to determine if the accused shared a common objective. The fact that the accused were armed and together attacked Murugaiyan’s hut, and subsequently Murugaiyan himself, indicated a common intention to harm him. The court emphasized that Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not require a pre-planned conspiracy, but rather a common objective, which was evident in this case.

Thirdly, the court considered the social context of the case. The murder was clearly motivated by caste-based animosity, which the court acknowledged as a significant aggravating factor. The court underscored the need to address such crimes with the full force of the law to ensure justice and equality.

Finally, the court’s decision was influenced by the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. The court emphasized that acquitting the accused based on minor discrepancies would undermine the credibility of the justice system. The court stressed that the evidence, taken as a whole, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, affirming the Madras High Court’s decision. The court emphasized that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering Murugaiyan. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

This judgment serves as a reminder that individuals who participate in an unlawful assembly with a common objective to commit a crime will be held accountable, even if they did not directly participate in the act itself. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in ensuring that those who act in concert to commit crimes are brought to justice.

The judgment also highlights the court’s commitment to combating caste-based violence and ensuring that perpetrators of such heinous crimes are punished. The Supreme Court’s decision sends a strong message that such acts of violence will not be tolerated and that the judiciary will uphold the rule of law to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their caste.