Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gruesome Murder Case: Md. Rojali Ali & Ors. vs. State of Assam (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can the testimony of family members be sufficient to convict someone of murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the brutal killing of four people. The court examined whether the evidence provided by the relatives of the deceased was credible enough to uphold the conviction of the accused. This judgment underscores the importance of reliable witness testimony, even when the witnesses are related to the victims. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

On the morning of 9th November 1995, at approximately 6:00 a.m., a group of 26 individuals, armed with spears, arrows, and lathis, surrounded the homes of Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali, and Samir Ali. The assailants trespassed into their homes, dragged them outside, and brutally assaulted them. As a result of the attack, Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, and Md. Mamud Ali died from their injuries. Samir Ali also succumbed to his injuries, although his name was not initially mentioned as a deceased in the First Information Report (FIR). Additionally, one Md. Atar Ali sustained injuries during the incident.

Initially, 26 individuals were named as accused in the FIR. However, the chargesheet was filed against only 15 persons. During the trial, one of the accused died, and two others absconded. Consequently, the trial proceeded against 12 accused, eight of whom are the appellants in this case. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 323, and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting the other accused. The Gauhati High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellants argued that the eyewitnesses were all closely related to the deceased, raising questions about their credibility. They also contended that the motive for the crime was weak, stemming from a minor quarrel the day before the incident. The appellants further claimed that they had no intention to commit murder and that no weapons were recovered from them. Additionally, they alleged that the prosecution suppressed the death of Turen Ali, who was part of the accused group and died during the same incident, and that six other persons from the accused group were also injured.

The State, on the other hand, argued in support of the judgments of the lower courts, asserting the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and the severity of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

✓ Whether the testimony of related witnesses can be the basis of conviction in a criminal case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, finding no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities in its reasoning:

• State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752: The Court reiterated that a witness is considered ‘interested’ only if they derive some benefit from the result of the litigation.
• Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145: The Court observed that close relatives are often the last people to falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199: The Court emphasized that the evidence of related witnesses should be approached with caution but not suspicion, focusing on consistency.

The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent, reliable, and supported by medical evidence. The Court also noted that the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene was natural, as they were family members of the deceased. The Court concluded that the accused were the aggressors who came with the clear intention to commit murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the consistent and reliable testimony of the eyewitnesses, who were closely related to the deceased. The court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses at the scene was natural, and their evidence was corroborated by medical evidence. The court also noted the brutal nature of the crime, where the accused, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the homes of the deceased and mercilessly assaulted them. The court found that the accused had a clear intention to commit murder, and their actions were premeditated.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the eyewitness testimonies and the nature of the crime, played a more significant role in the decision. The legal principles, such as the definition of “interested” witnesses and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were also considered.

The Court considered the argument that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased but rejected it, stating:

“a related witness cannot be said to be an ‘interested’ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.”

The Court also noted that:

“Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person…”

The Court emphasized that:

“the Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence.”

The Court concluded that:

“The evidence clearly reveals that the accused are the aggressors who came in a group to the house of the deceased, trespassed into their houses, dragged the deceased out and mercilessly assaulted the deceased with sharp spears, arrows and lathis.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of related witnesses can be the basis for conviction in criminal cases if the evidence is found to be reliable, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence.
• A related witness is not automatically considered an ‘interested’ witness unless they derive some benefit from the outcome of the litigation.
• Courts must be cautious but not suspicious of the evidence of related witnesses, focusing on the consistency and reliability of their testimony.
• The presence of family members at the scene of a crime is natural, and their testimony should not be discarded solely because of their relationship with the victim.
• The severity and brutality of a crime can be a significant factor in determining the guilt of the accused, especially when supported by reliable eyewitness testimony.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

(No specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of related witnesses can be the basis for conviction in criminal cases if the evidence is found to be reliable, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that a related witness is not automatically considered an ‘interested’ witness and clarifies the approach that courts should take when evaluating the testimony of such witnesses. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Md. Rojali Ali & Ors. vs. The State of Assam, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for the brutal murder of four individuals. The Court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses, who were related to the deceased, to be reliable and consistent. The Court emphasized that a related witness is not automatically an ‘interested’ witness and that their testimony can be accepted if it is found to be credible. The judgment reinforces the importance of reliable witness testimony in criminal cases and highlights the severity of the crime committed by the accused.