Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gruesome Family Murder Case: Ajai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 127
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J.

Can the testimony of a single eyewitness, who is also an injured party, be enough to convict the accused in a heinous murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the brutal murder of four family members. The court examined the reliability of such testimony and also looked into whether the High Court was correct in reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, was dealing with appeals against a High Court decision that upheld the conviction of the accused for murder but commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment. The key issue was whether the testimony of a single, injured eyewitness was sufficient for conviction, and whether the High Court was correct in reducing the sentence. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On August 25, 2007, at approximately 4:30 AM, Braj Pal Singh reported to the Muradnagar police station that he had heard his niece, Rashmi, screaming at around 3:00 AM. He, along with other villagers, rushed to his brother Vijay Pal Singh’s house. There, they found Vijay Pal Singh, his wife Rajesh, their son Nishant, and their son-in-law Mangal Singh dead with their necks cut. Vijay Pal Singh’s daughter, Pinky, was found injured on the ground floor.

Pinky (PW-1) and her sister Rashmi, daughters of the deceased Vijay Pal Singh, revealed a shocking sequence of events. Pinky stated that there was enmity between her father and his brother Braj Pal, as well as with their neighbor Mukesh. She recounted that on the night of the incident, she was sleeping with her parents on the ground floor when she was awakened by noise. She saw Mukesh, Braj Pal Singh, Ravi, and Ajai alias Ajju assaulting her parents with sharp weapons. Mukesh also attacked her with a sword, and she fell down, pretending to be dead.

Pinky further stated that Mukesh was saying, “Abrar makes sure that no one is left alive. Kill all of them.” She also mentioned that they were taking the name of one Pramod. After the assailants left, her sister Rashmi came down from upstairs, and they both ran outside, screaming. Braj Pal and Mukesh then came along with others and inquired about what had happened. Out of fear, both sisters initially denied having seen anyone. Later, Mukesh arranged for Ajai alias Ajju’s vehicle to take them to the hospital. On the way, they continued to ask if she had recognized anyone, which she denied. Pinky requested the Investigating Officer to keep their statements confidential due to imminent threats to their lives.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, convicted the four accused under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, Section 307 of the IPC for attempt to murder, and other related offenses under the IPC and the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court awarded them death sentences along with life imprisonment and other lesser sentences for different offenses.

The accused appealed to the High Court, which heard the appeals along with the death reference from the Trial Court. The High Court upheld the conviction for all offenses. However, after reviewing the law and other relevant factors, the High Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines 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 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly. It 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.”
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder. It states, “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.”
• Arms Act, 1959: This Act regulates the acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, import, export, and transport of firearms and ammunition. Specific sections of this Act were invoked against Mukesh and Ajai alias Ajju for possession of illegal weapons.

Arguments

The appellants raised several arguments against their conviction:

• Reliability of the Sole Eyewitness: The appellants argued that Smt. Pinky (PW-1) was a solitary eyewitness, related to the deceased, and had enmity with the appellants, making her testimony unreliable.
• Lack of Corroboration: They contended that there was no other evidence to corroborate the testimony of Smt. Pinky (PW-1).
• Initial Non-Disclosure: Smt. Pinky (PW-1) did not initially disclose the names of the assailants to the villagers or at the hospital, suggesting an improvement in her testimony.
• Use of Dog Squad: The summoning of a dog squad indicated that the assailants were unknown, contradicting the claim that Smt. Pinky (PW-1) had identified them.
• Non-Examination of Key Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine Ms. Rashmi and Horam, who were present at the scene.
• Non-Recording of Statement under Section 164 CrPC: The statement of Smt. Pinky (PW-1) was not recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), raising doubts about its credibility.
• Specific to Ravi: The appellant Ravi argued that Smt. Pinky (PW-1) did not mention his name in her initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, claiming his name was added later as an improvement.
• Discrepancies in Testimony: The Amicus Curiae for appellant Mukesh pointed out various discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses.

The respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that:

• The findings of the Trial Court and the High Court were based on a thorough examination of the evidence and did not require interference.
• The appellants, being close relatives and neighbors, committed the murders due to enmity and to gain property.
• The High Court erred in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, and the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court should be restored.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in questioning the reliability of a sole eyewitness, especially one who is related to the deceased and has a motive to falsely implicate the accused. They also highlighted the procedural lapses in the investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, who is also an injured witness, can be relied upon for conviction.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the injured eyewitness, Smt. Pinky (PW-1), and the consistent nature of her testimony. The court emphasized that her injuries and the lack of any motive to falsely implicate the accused made her testimony credible. Additionally, the court found that the High Court had provided sound reasons for commuting the death sentence.

The Court considered and rejected arguments based on procedural lapses and minor discrepancies in the evidence. The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the quality of the witness is more important than the quantity of witnesses.

The court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the injured witness, Smt. Pinky, and upheld the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “PW­1 is an injured witness. Her injuries have not been challenged. There is no reason why PW­1 would make false implication and allow the real assailants to go scot­free.”
• “A perusal of her testimony shows that she has fully supported the prosecution story as narrated by her in her statement under section 161 CrPC. Even during cross­examination nothing has been elicited from her which in any way may weaken or demolish her testimony.”
• “The High Court has given sound and cogent reasons for commuting death sentence into life sentence.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a single, injured eyewitness can be sufficient for conviction in a criminal case if the witness is found to be credible and their testimony is consistent.
• Courts will consider the reasons for any initial non-disclosure of facts, especially if there is a valid explanation, such as fear for one’s safety.
• The quality of the witness is more important than the quantity of witnesses in a criminal case.
• The Supreme Court will generally uphold the High Court’s decision on sentencing unless there are compelling reasons to interfere.
• Minor discrepancies in the evidence will not impact the findings if the core testimony is found to be reliable.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment. The appellants were already in custody and were directed to serve out their sentences.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a single, injured eyewitness can be sufficient for conviction if the witness is found to be reliable and their testimony is consistent. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the quality of the witness is more important than the quantity of witnesses. The court also upheld the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence, emphasizing that the High Court had provided sound and cogent reasons for its decision. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused, upholding their conviction for the gruesome murder of four family members. The court found the testimony of the injured eyewitness, Smt. Pinky, to be reliable and sufficient for conviction. Additionally, the court upheld the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment, finding that the High Court had provided sound reasons for its decision. The appeals filed by the State for enhancement of sentence were also dismissed.