Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Sk. Khabir vs. State of West Bengal (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 10 October 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 905

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of witnesses who are related to the victims? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined whether the High Court was correct in upholding the trial court’s decision to convict the accused based on the evidence presented. This case involves a brutal double murder where the key witnesses were the brother of the deceased. The bench comprised of Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The complainant (PW-1) and his brothers, Abdul Sayed and Narul Islam, were arrested in May 1980 for the murder of Saiful Islam. After being released on bail, they couldn’t return to their village due to the damage caused by enraged villagers. The accused, along with others, persuaded them to return. On April 25, 1981, upon their return, they were attacked by villagers armed with deadly weapons. The brothers of PW-1 were killed, and PW-1 was grievously injured. An FIR was registered, and 26 people were named as accused, including the present appellant, Sk. Khabir. A chargesheet was submitted against the appellant and 12 others under Sections 148, 149, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant and five others under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The accused appealed to the High Court, arguing irregularities in the framing of the charge. The High Court allowed the appeal on 31 July 1981 and remanded the matter for retrial. In the retrial, the trial court again convicted the appellant and five others under the same sections of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant and two others. Only the appellant and another accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The other accused died during the pendency of the appeal, and thus the present appeal is only by Sk. Khabir.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.” This section deals with the offense of rioting when the rioters are armed with deadly weapons.
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” This section states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of the same assembly at the time of the offense is guilty of that offense.
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.” This section prescribes the punishment for the offense of murder.
• Section 307, IPC: “Attempt to murder.” This section deals with the offense of attempting to commit murder.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in upholding the trial court’s conviction.
• The appellant contended that the High Court placed excessive reliance on the testimony of eye-witnesses who were closely related to the victims.
• It was further submitted that two other witnesses had turned hostile.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent-State supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
• The respondent submitted that the appeal was devoid of merit and should be dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction based on the evidence presented, particularly the testimony of related eye-witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The Court primarily relied on the factual evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses, the FIR, and medical reports.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The testimony of PW1 and PW2 was deemed reliable after close scrutiny and was corroborated with medical evidence and the FIR.
• The medical evidence, including post-mortem reports and the doctor’s testimony (PW16), was used to corroborate the ocular evidence and establish the cause of death.
• The FIR was used to verify the consistency of the witness testimonies.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the corroboration between the ocular evidence provided by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the post-mortem reports and the doctor’s testimony supported the fact that the victims suffered fatal injuries from weapons. The consistency between the witness testimonies and the FIR also played a significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the eye-witnesses were related to the victims but found their testimony to be credible due to the corroborating medical evidence and consistency with the FIR. The Court also noted that even the hostile witnesses did not deny the incident, which further supported the prosecution’s case. The Court did not find any alternative interpretation that would overturn the conviction.

The Supreme Court stated, “the ocular evidence of the two eye witnesses stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence, wherein it is proved that the accused persons used blunt and sharp weapons to cause injuries on the deceased persons and the P.W 1-complainant as well.” The Court further noted, “the depositions of P.W 1 & 2 are in consonance with the contents of the FIR.” Additionally, the Court observed, “the accused persons have not challenged the post-mortem examination reports of the victims during the cross examination wherein it is clearly stated that, the victims had an unnatural death pursuant to the injuries caused to them by means of weapons such as tangi, sword, lathis etc.” These points led the Court to conclude that there was no perversity in the High Court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of related eye-witnesses can be considered reliable if it is corroborated by other evidence, such as medical reports and the FIR.
• The consistency between the ocular evidence, medical evidence, and the FIR is crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.
• Even if some witnesses turn hostile, their implied admissions can be taken into consideration.
• The concurrent findings of the lower courts are generally upheld unless there is a clear perversity in the judgment.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be reliable if corroborated by medical evidence and the FIR. This case reinforces the principle that the courts must consider all evidence holistically and not dismiss witness testimony solely based on their relationship with the victim. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant for offenses under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the High Court, emphasizing the corroboration between the ocular and medical evidence, as well as the consistency with the FIR.