Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Ashwani Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the accused claim they were provoked or not present at the scene of the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Ashwani Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Punjab. The Court examined whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the accused for murder based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and K.M. Joseph, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On 18 September 1998, at approximately 1:30 PM, police officers on patrol duty heard shrieks coming from a room in a house. The room was bolted from the inside. Peeking through the gaps in the door, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) saw a man sitting on a woman’s chest, pressing her neck. Another woman stood nearby, holding a brick. This woman struck the woman on the ground twice with the brick, and told the man to finish her, stating that the woman on the ground had insulted her. The man then used a ‘khurpa’ to inflict blows on her. After killing her, both the man and the woman came out and declared they had completed their task. The deceased was the wife of the first appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court accepted the prosecution’s version of events and convicted the appellants. The High Court also upheld the Trial Court’s decision, finding no reason to doubt the prosecution’s case. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. The conviction was also read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The first appellant stated that he found his wife in a compromising position with another man. In a fit of rage, he pushed her, and she hit her head against the wall. He claims his wife then insulted him, saying that his six-month-old son was not his and that she would have other children with her lover. He stated that he lost control and caused injuries to his wife under this provocation.
• The second appellant claimed she was not present at the scene of the crime and was innocent.
• The appellants argued that the conduct of the police, specifically P.W.2, in not breaking open the door and only watching the occurrence for five minutes, made the evidence suspect.
• They relied on the testimony of D.W.1, who stated that the first appellant confessed to killing his wife in a fit of provocation after suspecting she was with another man. D.W.1 also stated that no police official arrived at the spot before C. Karam Singh and SPO Kultar Singh.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution presented the testimonies of P.W.2 (Assistant Sub-Inspector) and P.W.3 (Head Constable) who witnessed the crime. They testified that they heard shrieks from inside the room, and upon looking through the gaps in the door, they saw the first appellant sitting on the chest of the deceased, and the second appellant hitting her with a brick.
• The police officers stated that after committing the crime, the appellants came out and proclaimed that they had accomplished their task.
• The prosecution argued that there was no motive for the police officials to falsely implicate the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any authorities by name. However, the Court considered the following:

• Testimony of P.W.2 (Assistant Sub-Inspector): The Court relied on the testimony of the police officer who witnessed the crime.
• Testimony of P.W.3 (Head Constable): The Court also relied on the testimony of the Head Constable who witnessed the crime.
• Statement of the first appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court did not find the appellant’s statement to be credible.
• Testimony of D.W.1: The Court did not find the testimony of the defense witness to be credible.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 were considered credible as they were direct witnesses to the crime.
• The statement of the first appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believed by the Court.
• The testimony of D.W.1 was not found to be credible by the Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the direct testimonies of the police officers (P.W.2 and P.W.3) who witnessed the crime. The Court found their evidence to be consistent and credible. The lack of any apparent motive for the police to falsely implicate the appellants also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court did not believe the appellants’ claims of provocation and alibi, finding them inconsistent with the evidence presented.

The Court’s reasoning process can be illustrated as follows:

The Court considered the possibility of the appellants’ claims being true, but found them to be inconsistent with the evidence. The Court noted that the appellants’ version of events was not supported by the facts, and the direct testimony of the police officers was more credible.

The Court stated, “We are not persuaded to overturn the concurrent findings of the courts below.” The Court also noted, “As observed by the High Court, there is no motive for the police officials to falsely implicate the appellants.” Furthermore, the Court stated, “The presence of the second appellant and her being apprehended by the police officers, has been believed by both the Courts and this is completely inconsistent with the case set up by the appellants.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of direct witness testimony.
• Claims of provocation and alibi must be supported by credible evidence to be accepted by the courts.
• The absence of a motive for the police to falsely implicate the accused strengthens the prosecution’s case.
• The Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s reliance on direct evidence and the rejection of inconsistent or unsubstantiated claims by the accused.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the direct testimonies of the police officers, and rejected the claims of provocation and alibi by the accused persons. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder. The Court relied on the direct testimonies of the police officers, and rejected the appellants’ claims of provocation and alibi. The judgment reinforces the importance of credible evidence and the judiciary’s reliance on direct witness accounts in criminal cases.