Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Circumstantial Evidence: Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara vs. State of Gujarat (2022) INSC 644 (11 July 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for murder can be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness who provided inconsistent statements, along with circumstantial evidence.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara vs. State of Gujarat

Judgment Date: 11 July 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 644

Judges: M. R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitness provides varying accounts of the incident? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the gruesome murder of two individuals. This judgment explores the reliability of eyewitness testimony, especially when the witness is a child, and the significance of corroborating circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt. The bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Simbhiben and her son Mukesh. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara, and a co-accused, Jagrutiben, were in love and conspired to kill Jagrutiben’s family members. According to the prosecution, on the day of the incident, the appellant and Jagrutiben strangled Simbhiben and Mukesh, resulting in their deaths. They also attempted to kill another son, Rajdeep (PW66), by strangulation, but he survived.

Rajdeep’s initial statement, recorded on 05.03.2009, did not implicate the appellant. However, in subsequent statements, particularly the one recorded on 25.03.2009, he named the appellant and Jagrutiben as the perpetrators. The post-mortem reports confirmed that Simbhiben and Mukesh died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. A bottle of pesticide was also recovered from the scene, which was later found to have been purchased by the appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 328 (causing harm by poison) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court heavily relied on the testimony of Rajdeep (PW66), the sole eyewitness, and the recovery of the pesticide bottle purchased by the appellant. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: 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: This section addresses the attempt to commit murder. It reads, “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 328: This section pertains to causing harm by poison, etc., with intent to commit an offense. It specifies, “Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction based solely on the testimony of Rajdeep (PW66), whose statements were inconsistent.
• It was pointed out that Rajdeep’s initial statements did not implicate the appellant, and his name surfaced only in the last statement recorded on 25.03.2009.
• The appellant contended that most of the witnesses, including panch witnesses, turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case.
• The prosecution failed to establish a motive for the appellant to commit the murders.
• The story of pesticide was unbelievable, especially since the medical reports indicated that the deaths were due to strangulation, not poisoning.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the case was a double murder, and the appellant also attempted to kill Rajdeep (PW66), who survived and was the sole eyewitness.
• The State submitted that despite some contradictions in Rajdeep’s statements, his testimony was reliable, especially considering his mental condition and the fact that he was a child who had witnessed the murders.
• The State argued that Rajdeep’s initial reluctance to name the appellant might have been due to the presence of the co-accused, Jagrutiben, and the trauma he suffered.
• The State emphasized the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the pesticide bottle purchased by the appellant from the scene of the crime.
• The State contended that even if the deceased did not die due to poison, an attempt was made to administer it, and the appellant failed to explain his presence and the purchase of the pesticide.

The innovativeness in the argument by the appellant’s side was to highlight the inconsistencies in the statements of the sole eye witness and to question the motive. The respondent’s side innovatively argued that the inconsistencies in the statements of the sole eye witness were due to his mental condition and the presence of the co-accused, and that the circumstantial evidence was enough to prove the guilt.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused for murder can be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness who provided inconsistent statements, along with circumstantial evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly mention any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the legal provisions considered were:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Attempt to murder.
• Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Causing harm by poison.

Authorities Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Court considered the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Applied to convict the accused for murder.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Applied to convict the accused for attempt to murder.
• Section 328, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Applied to convict the accused for causing harm by poison.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, emphasized the following points:

• The Court acknowledged the inconsistencies in the statements of Rajdeep (PW66) but gave him the benefit of doubt due to his age and the trauma he experienced.
• The Court highlighted the importance of the circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of the pesticide bottle purchased by the accused, which was found at the crime scene.
• The Court noted that the accused failed to explain the incriminating circumstances against him, namely, the purchase of the pesticide and its presence at the crime scene.
• The Court stated that while the medical reports indicated death by strangulation, the attempt to administer poison could not be ruled out, given the presence of the pesticide bottle.

Sentiment Analysis Table

The analysis shows that the circumstantial evidence and the failure of the accused to explain the incriminating material weighed heavily in the mind of the Court.

Fact:Law Ratio

The ratio of fact:law indicates that the factual aspects of the case, such as the eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, played a more significant role in the Court’s decision than the purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while the eyewitness testimony had some inconsistencies, the circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of the pesticide bottle, and the failure of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances, were sufficient to uphold the conviction. The Court also considered the mental condition of the eyewitness while assessing the reliability of his testimony.

The Court considered the argument that the medical reports indicated death by strangulation and not by poisoning. However, the Court noted that the attempt to administer poison could not be ruled out, given the presence of the pesticide bottle at the crime scene. The Court also noted that the accused had failed to explain his presence at the scene of the crime and the purchase of the pesticide.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the High Court. The Court stated, “Under the circumstances and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed any error convicting the accused for having killed Simbhiben and her brother Mukesh.” The Court further stated, “For the reason stated above we confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court affirmed by the High Court.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment. The bench unanimously agreed to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction.

Key Takeaways

✓ The judgment highlights that even if the sole eyewitness provides inconsistent statements, the conviction can be upheld if there is sufficient corroborating circumstantial evidence.

✓ The Court emphasized that the failure of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances can be a critical factor in determining guilt.

✓ This case underscores the importance of considering the mental condition and circumstances of a witness, especially when the witness is a child.

✓ The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence can play a crucial role in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The Court simply dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction can be upheld based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, even if the statements are inconsistent, provided there is sufficient corroborating circumstantial evidence and the accused fails to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. This case reaffirms the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly when direct evidence is not entirely consistent. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies how inconsistent testimony can be viewed with corroborating evidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Simbhiben and Mukesh. The Court found that despite the inconsistencies in the statements of the sole eyewitness, Rajdeep (PW66), the circumstantial evidence, particularly the recovery of the pesticide bottle purchased by the accused, and the failure of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances, were sufficient to establish guilt. This judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction can be based on a combination of eyewitness testimony and corroborating circumstantial evidence.