Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: Gian Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal in a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Gian Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Judgment Date: May 18, 2023

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 553

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can discrepancies in witness statements lead to the overturning of a conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a fatal assault. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused, Gian Chand, who was charged under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on September 14, 1992, at approximately 7:00 PM. A verbal altercation escalated into a physical assault, resulting in the death of Salig Ram. The prosecution alleged that Gian Chand, along with Mohar Lal and Ranjit, attacked Salig Ram with wooden sticks (“danda”) and thick branches, causing fatal injuries. The dispute stemmed from a land allocation issue, where land was allotted to both the deceased and the appellant. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Mohar Singh, a member of the Gram Panchayat, and Khyali Ram, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the accused after evaluating the evidence. However, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed this decision in an appeal by the State, convicting Gian Chand under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The High Court found that the Trial Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly regarding minor discrepancies in witness testimonies. The High Court sentenced Gian Chand to four years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹1000. This judgment of the High Court was challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This section states:

“Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

The judgment also references Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which pertains to the examination of witnesses by the police.

The judgment also references Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which pertains to the power to examine the accused.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there were significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the statements of the eyewitnesses.
• It was contended that the High Court should not have reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court, especially since a possible view was taken by it.
• The appellant highlighted that there was an admitted land dispute between the parties.
• The appellant argued that the Trial Court did not consider the statement of Amar Singh (DW-1), an independent witness, who testified that the deceased died due to a fall from a height of 10-12 feet.
• The counsel for the appellant pleaded that the incident occurred in 1992 and that more than three decades have passed, and the families have settled, and therefore, the matter may be considered in that light.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses (PWs 1 to 5) were not significant enough to overturn the conviction, as they all consistently testified that Gian Chand struck the deceased on the head with a “danda,” causing his death.
• The respondent contended that the defense’s claim that the deceased died due to a fall was not supported by medical evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

• Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court did not rely on any specific case laws or books in its judgment. The court primarily focused on the factual evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court applied Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to the facts of the case to determine the culpability of the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The court considered the supplementary statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973* to assess the consistency of the evidence.
• The court considered the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973* to assess the admissions made by the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, who stated that the appellant had struck the deceased with a “danda” on the head. The Court also noted that the medical evidence did not support the defense’s claim that the deceased had died due to a fall. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements were not sufficient to overturn the conviction, especially when the core facts were consistently established.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the factual evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. The court emphasized that the eyewitness accounts consistently pointed towards the appellant as the perpetrator of the fatal blow. The court also considered the medical evidence, which did not support the defense’s claim of death by falling.

The court rejected the defense’s argument that the deceased died due to a fall, noting that the medical evidence did not support this claim. The court also pointed out the inconsistencies in the defense’s version of events, with different witnesses offering different accounts of where the fall occurred. The court concluded that the High Court had correctly evaluated the evidence and that there was no reason to overturn its decision.

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, thereby affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

The court quoted:

“The Trial Court has erroneously concluded that the variance between the two versions goes to the very root of the case. It must be noted that PW-1 corrected his statement at the first available opportunity on the same day.”

“On a combined reading of the depositions made by the eye witnesses, it is clear that these do not suffer from any major contradictions.”

“In view of the clinching evidence produced by the prosecution, in the form of independent witnesses, in our view, no error has been committed by the High Court in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench was composed of two judges, and both concurred with the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not automatically invalidate a conviction if the core facts are consistently established.
• Medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining the cause of death and can be used to refute defense claims.
• Inconsistencies in the defense’s version of events can undermine their credibility.
• The High Court has the power to reverse the Trial Court’s decision if it finds that the Trial Court has erred in its assessment of the evidence.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not automatically invalidate a conviction if the core facts are consistently established, and the medical evidence supports the prosecution’s case. This case reinforces the principle that the appellate court can reverse the trial court’s decision if the trial court has erred in its assessment of evidence. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Gian Chand under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the High Court had correctly reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal, as the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, established the appellant’s culpability. The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements did not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case and that the defense’s claim of death by falling was not supported by evidence.