Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gruesome Murder Case: Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar (2018)

Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 276

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a conviction be upheld based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, even when there are minor inconsistencies and a delay in reporting the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a brutal murder where the victim’s body was dismembered to destroy evidence. This judgment examines the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the significance of motive in a criminal trial. The bench was composed of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

On the night of October 14, 1973, Gupteshwar Singh, the deceased, along with Shambhu Singh (PW6), was taking food to his farm worker at a pump house near the Pusauli railway station. Gupteshwar’s step-mother, Surajbansi Kuer (PW11), noticed he had forgotten his torch. She, along with Muneshwar Singh (PW14), Gupteshwar’s brother, went to deliver the torch. Near Chhabi Koiri’s cattle shed, they encountered Shambhu Singh running back, who informed them that seven individuals, including the appellants, had attacked Gupteshwar. PW11, PW6, and PW14, upon reaching the spot, saw the accused holding Gupteshwar. One of the accused, Shesh Badan Singh (now deceased), was armed with a gun, while the others had lathis. Shesh Badan Singh instructed the others to kill the witnesses, declaring that they had already killed Gupteshwar. The accused then carried Gupteshwar towards the railway yard. Frightened, the witnesses fled. The next morning, PW11 attempted to file a complaint but was delayed due to a large gathering at the police station. She eventually filed the First Information Report (FIR) at 4:00 AM on October 16, 1973.

During the investigation, the police recovered Gupteshwar Singh’s body in two parts. His head was found in a gunny bag in a well, and the rest of his body was found in a gunny bag in a goods train. PW11 identified the body as that of her step-son.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused, including the appellants, under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld this conviction. The present appeals are against the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—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.” This section deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of their common objective.
• Section 201: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section addresses the destruction of evidence to protect an offender.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Arguments by the Appellants

• The defense argued that there was a significant delay of approximately 30 hours in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). This delay casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
• The conduct of the eyewitnesses (PWs 6, 11, and 14) was unnatural. They did not raise an alarm or attempt to save the deceased after witnessing the incident, which is not the expected behavior of a witness to a crime.
• The evidence against the accused, other than Kameshwar Singh, was vague and did not specifically implicate them in the crime. The prosecution failed to establish the common object required under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments by the Prosecution

• The prosecution contended that the eyewitness accounts of PWs 6, 11, and 14 were consistent, cogent, and reliable, particularly regarding the role of Kameshwar Singh in throttling the deceased.
• The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the circumstances. PW11 was an illiterate rural woman, and she was threatened by the accused, which caused her to delay filing the complaint.
• The evidence of PW9, an officer of the Railway Protection Force, established the motive for the crime. Kameshwar Singh had a motive to kill the deceased as the deceased was a witness against him in two cases under the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
• The recovery of the deceased’s body in two parts and the identification of the body by PW11 further corroborated the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the conduct of the eyewitnesses cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
3. Whether the prosecution established the common object under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 – The Supreme Court of India relied on this case to support its view that witnesses react differently to violent incidents, and their reactions should not be judged by a rigid standard.

Legal Provisions

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of their common objective.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code: This section addresses the destruction of evidence to protect an offender.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The court found the eyewitness testimony of PWs 6, 11, and 14 to be consistent and reliable, particularly regarding Kameshwar Singh’s role in throttling the deceased. The court also found that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the circumstances of the case. The court held that the motive for the crime was established by the testimony of PW9, who stated that Kameshwar Singh had threatened the deceased for being a witness in other cases.

However, the court found that the evidence against the other accused was vague and did not specifically implicate them in the crime. The court noted that while suspicion existed against the other accused, suspicion could not take the place of proof. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the common object required under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the other accused.

The court upheld the conviction of Kameshwar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The court acquitted the other accused, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327– The Supreme Court of India used this case to support its view that witnesses react differently to violent incidents.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter- attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.”

“It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff.”

“So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, the established motive of the accused, and the corroborating evidence of the recovery of the deceased’s body. The court emphasized the need to carefully scrutinize evidence, separating the reliable parts from the unreliable, and to consider the circumstances and reactions of witnesses in a realistic manner. The court also highlighted that suspicion cannot replace concrete proof, particularly in criminal cases. The court also gave importance to the fact that the accused Kameshwar Singh was specifically named by the witnesses, and there was no doubt on his involvement.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, if consistent and reliable, can be a strong basis for conviction.
• Motive plays a significant role in establishing the guilt of the accused.
• The conduct of witnesses should be evaluated in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.
• Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
• The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India, and courts must separate the grain from the chaff in evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Kameshwar Singh serve out the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The court also directed that the other accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that conviction can be based on consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, coupled with a strong motive. This case also reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The court also reiterated that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms existing ones regarding the evaluation of evidence in criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Kameshwar Singh for the murder of Gupteshwar Singh, based on the consistent eyewitness testimony, the established motive, and the corroborating evidence. The court, however, acquitted the other accused due to lack of specific evidence against them. This judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence and the need for a thorough and realistic evaluation of witness behavior in criminal trials.