Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: February 04, 2022
Citation: Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 97
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when a key witness turns hostile and another is not examined? The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed this question while affirming the conviction of the appellants in a double murder case. The court emphasized the importance of the quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses, and clarified the role and admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses and the impact of non-examination of a witness. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

On September 17, 2004, at approximately 8:15 a.m., two individuals were fatally shot. The incident occurred due to a long-standing election dispute between two groups. The deceased were waylaid by the accused while traveling on two-wheelers. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged within an hour by PW-1, the nephew of one of the deceased. The postmortem was conducted on the same day by PW-4. PW-7 registered the FIR, and PW-13, PW-8, and PW-14 were the Investigating Officers, with PW-13 leading the investigation. Recoveries were made from all the accused, including a recovery from the house of Accused No. 3, from his wife. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused, and the High Court modified the conviction, imposing a life sentence while acquitting them of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act for all except one accused, whose case was remitted for adequacy of charge. This accused was subsequently convicted, and his appeal is pending before the High Court. The current appeal before the Supreme Court challenges the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which defines “evidence” as:

• “(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court], such documents are called documentary evidence.”

The section also defines “proved” as:

• “A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.”

And “disproved” as:

• “A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.”

The Court emphasized that “evidence” is a means to establish the probability of a fact. It highlighted that the definition of “proved” is crucial, requiring the court to consider “matters before it” to determine the probability of a fact’s existence. The court noted that “matters” are broader than “evidence” and include all material factors that help prove a fact.

Arguments

Submissions of the Appellants:

• The prosecution deliberately did not examine the injured eye-witness, Om Prakash.
• The other two eye-witnesses were related and chance witnesses, hence interested in securing a conviction.
• The evidence of PW-13 should not be accepted as he was not fully cross-examined.
• The location of the cartridges near the bodies is suspicious as the deceased were allegedly running.
• There was a delay in receiving the FSL report.
• An unrelated cartridge was recovered, creating suspicion on the prosecution’s version.

The appellants cited the following cases:

• Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana, (1989) 3 SCC 56
• State of Orissa v. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty, (2009) 7 SCC 412
• Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526
• Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657
• Jagir Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1975 Crl LJ 1009

Submissions of the State:

• The trial court and High Court correctly assessed the evidence.
• The testimonies of PWs-1 & 2 cannot be disbelieved merely because they are relatives of the deceased.
• The evidence of PW-3, though hostile, was rightly considered along with that of PW-13.
• The expert report confirms that the weapons recovered were used in the crime.
• It is not necessary to examine all witnesses.
• PW-13 explained why Om Prakash was not produced.
• The High Court has already set aside the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the court implicitly addressed the following issues:

• Whether the evidence of related witnesses can be relied upon for conviction.
• Whether the testimony of a hostile witness can be considered.
• Whether the non-examination of a witness is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Whether the FSL report and other evidence were properly considered by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981 – On the principle that evidence has to be weighed, not counted. (Supreme Court of India)
• C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 – On the admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 – On the conduct of trials and the examination of witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 – On the evidentiary value of a final report and non-examination of investigating officer. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of A.P. v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660 – On the credibility of chance witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 – On the scrutiny of chance witness testimony. (Supreme Court of India)
• Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591 – On the reliability of related witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 – On the non-examination of witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 3 SCC 401 – On the quality of evidence over quantity of witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Definitions of “evidence,” “proved,” and “disproved.”
• Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated.
• Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Filing of final report by the investigating officer.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

• Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981: The Court reiterated the principle that evidence should be weighed and not counted, emphasizing the quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses.
• C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567: The Court relied on this case to support its view that the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent it supports the case.
• Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220: The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of conducting trials without undue delays and to emphasize that the cross-examination of a witness should be completed on the same day as the examination-in-chief.
• Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417: The Court cited this case to support its view that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• State of A.P. v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660: The Court relied on this case to clarify that the testimony of a chance witness should not be rejected merely because they happened to be at the scene of the crime by chance.
• Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the evidence of a chance witness requires close scrutiny.
• Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591: The Court cited this case to support its view that related witnesses can be reliable if their evidence is credible and withstands cross-examination.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369: The Court relied on this case to clarify that non-examination of a witness is not fatal to the prosecution’s case if the prosecution has provided a valid explanation.
• Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 3 SCC 401: The Court cited this case to reiterate that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Quality of Evidence: The Court emphasized that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of witnesses. The testimonies of PWs-1 and 2 were considered reliable as they were consistent and withstood cross-examination, despite being related to the deceased.
• Hostile Witness Testimony: The Court acknowledged that while PW-3 turned hostile, his initial testimony in chief examination was still considered relevant. The circumstances of his turning hostile were also taken into account.
• Non-Examination of Witness: The Court accepted the prosecution’s explanation for not producing Om Prakash, stating that it did not invalidate the entire case. The court reiterated that it is not mandatory to examine all witnesses.
• FSL Report: The Court relied on the FSL report, which corroborated the prosecution’s case. The circumstances of sending and receiving the report were also found to be satisfactory.
• Investigating Officer: The Court noted that while PW-13 could not be fully cross-examined, his testimony and the final report were not the sole basis of the conviction. The court reiterated that the final report is merely an opinion of the investigating officer.
• Judicial Process: The Court expressed concern about the deliberate attempts to derail the quest for justice, particularly the practice of adjourning cross-examinations of private witnesses, which allows time for them to be influenced.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful assessment of the evidence and legal principles. It emphasized that the focus should be on the quality of evidence and the credibility of witnesses, rather than the number of witnesses or their relationship to the parties involved. The Court also highlighted the importance of a fair judicial process and expressed concern about tactics used to delay trials and influence witnesses.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, finding the prosecution’s case to be credible and supported by the available evidence. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that a fact is considered proved when a prudent man would act upon the supposition that it exists.

The court quoted from the judgment, “It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point; it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters.” This highlights the court’s emphasis on the quality of evidence.

The court also stated, “Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected.” This shows the court’s view on related witnesses.

The Court also noted, “The trial court as well as the High court considered the evidence threadbare in coming to the right conclusion.” This shows the court’s agreement with the lower courts.

Key Takeaways

• Quality over Quantity: The judgment reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the number of witnesses. Courts should focus on the credibility and consistency of testimonies rather than the quantity of witnesses.
• Related Witnesses: The judgment clarifies that related witnesses can be reliable if their evidence is clear, cogent, and withstands cross-examination. Mere relationship is not a ground to reject their testimony.
• Hostile Witnesses: The judgment clarifies that the testimony of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent it supports the case, and the circumstances of their turning hostile can also be considered.
• Non-Examination of Witnesses: The judgment states that non-examination of a witness is not fatal if there is sufficient other evidence and a valid explanation for the non-examination.
• Trial Delays: The Court expressed concern about the deliberate attempts to delay trials and influence witnesses, emphasizing the need for trial courts to complete the examination of private witnesses promptly.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that trial courts should endeavor to complete the examination (both chief and cross) of private witnesses on the same day as far as possible. The court also directed that trial courts should take up the examination of private witnesses first before proceeding with official witnesses. A copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to all trial courts through the respective High Courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of witnesses, and the testimony of related witnesses, hostile witnesses, and the non-examination of a witness should be assessed based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The judgment reinforces the existing legal principles and highlights the need for a fair and efficient judicial process. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment reiterates and clarifies the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants in a double murder case, emphasizing the importance of the quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses. The Court clarified the role and admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses and the impact of non-examination of a witness. The judgment also highlights the need for a fair and efficient judicial process and directs trial courts to complete the examination of private witnesses promptly.