Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Dying Declaration: Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2019) INSC 123

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 123

Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a conviction be solely based on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased, and a dying declaration? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined the reliability of evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts from family members and a dying declaration, to determine if the High Court was right in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable evidence, even from related witnesses, and the probative value of a dying declaration.

The bench comprised of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The judgment was authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between Ananta Ghosh and his neighbor, Keshab, regarding the boundary of their properties. On April 30, 1982, at approximately 9:30 am, Ananta Ghosh called out to Keshab from in front of Keshab’s house. When Keshab came out, a verbal argument ensued. Ananta then instigated his sons, Laltu and Paltu Ghosh, and his friend, Sakti @ Sero Karmakar, to assault Keshab. Laltu Ghosh punched Keshab in the face and stabbed him in the abdomen. Despite being injured, Keshab tried to escape but was further attacked by Paltu Ghosh, who stabbed him in the back. Keshab collapsed near a tea stall and was taken to a primary health center where he received first aid and gave a statement to Dr. Roychowdhury (PW-18), which was later treated as a dying declaration. Keshab succumbed to his injuries while being transported to a hospital for better treatment. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Keshab’s son (PW-1) on the same day at 10:45 am.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all four accused: Laltu Ghosh, Paltu Ghosh, Ananta Ghosh, and Sakti @ Sero Karmakar. The State of West Bengal appealed this decision to the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, convicting Laltu Ghosh. The High Court also declared Paltu Ghosh a juvenile on the date of the incident. Ananta Ghosh and Sakti Karmakar passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. Laltu Ghosh then appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the assessment of evidence, including eyewitness testimony and a dying declaration. The legal framework involves principles related to the credibility of witnesses, particularly whether the testimony of relatives should be treated differently. The court also considered the value and admissibility of a dying declaration as evidence. The court referred to several precedents to clarify the distinction between ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witnesses, emphasizing that a witness should not be deemed unreliable solely because they are related to the victim.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Laltu Ghosh):

• The High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant.
• The evidence of PW-1 (son of the deceased) and PW-4 (wife of the deceased) should not be believed due to material contradictions.
• PW-1 and PW-4 are close relatives of the deceased, and therefore their testimony is unreliable.
• The Trial Court had correctly rejected the dying declaration as shaky.
• The High Court failed to analyze the entire evidence and did not address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of West Bengal):

• The High Court rightly rejected the Trial Court’s findings.
• There is no doubt about the persons who caused injuries to the deceased.
• The High Court was justified in applying the principle of common intention.
• The High Court gave valid reasons for accepting the dying declaration, which the Trial Court had wrongly discarded.
• The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 is consistent and reliable.

Analysis of Arguments:

The appellant argued that the eyewitnesses were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased and inconsistencies in their statements, and that the dying declaration was not credible. The State, however, contended that the High Court correctly assessed the evidence, and that the eyewitness accounts and the dying declaration were consistent and credible.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal and convicting the appellant, Laltu Ghosh.
2. Whether the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, being close relatives of the deceased, can be considered reliable.
3. Whether the dying declaration was rightly considered by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 – This case was cited to differentiate between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses, stating that a witness is interested only if they derive some benefit from the litigation or have a motive to falsely implicate the accused. (Supreme Court of India)
• Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107 – This case was used to reiterate the principle that a witness is considered interested only if they have a motive to falsely implicate the accused. (Supreme Court of India)
• Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 – This case further clarified the distinction between ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witnesses. (Supreme Court of India)
• Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549 – This case reiterated the principle established in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, emphasizing that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness. (Supreme Court of India)
• Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 – This case was cited to emphasize that a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. (Supreme Court of India)
• Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 – This case was referred to highlight that the court should not be suspicious of the evidence of interested witnesses but should look for consistency. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• The judgment does not specifically mention any particular section of any statute, but it discusses the general principles of evidence law, particularly regarding the admissibility of eyewitness testimony and dying declarations.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752:* The court used this case to clarify the difference between ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witnesses, emphasizing that a related witness is not automatically considered an interested witness.
• Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 107:* The court reiterated the principle that a witness is considered interested only if they have a motive to falsely implicate the accused.
• Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298:* The court used this case to further clarify the distinction between ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witnesses.
• Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549:* The court reiterated the principle that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness.
• Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145:* The court emphasized that a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199:* The court highlighted that the court should not be suspicious of the evidence of interested witnesses but should look for consistency.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistency and reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 were credible, as their presence at the scene was natural, and their accounts were consistent with each other and with the dying declaration. The Court also emphasized the importance of the dying declaration, noting that it was made by the victim in a fit state of mind and was corroborated by other evidence. The Court rejected the Trial Court’s skepticism towards the public officers involved, noting that there was no evidence to support the allegation of fabrication of the dying declaration.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, but found them to be less plausible than the prosecution’s case. The Court rejected the argument that the eyewitnesses should be disbelieved solely because they were relatives of the deceased, and emphasized that their testimony was consistent, cogent, and reliable. The Court also rejected the Trial Court’s view that the dying declaration was fabricated, noting that there was no evidence to support such a claim. The final decision was reached by affirming the High Court’s conviction of the appellant.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-4, were natural witnesses whose presence at the scene was expected.
• Their testimonies were consistent and reliable, despite minor variations.
• The dying declaration was credible and corroborated by the eyewitness testimonies.
• The Trial Court’s skepticism towards the public officers was unfounded.
• The High Court had substantial and compelling reasons to differ from the Trial Court’s findings.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“We find that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 is consistent, cogent, reliable and trustworthy.”

“It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence.”

“The High Court, on reappreciation of the entire evidence before it, has come to an independent and just conclusion by setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of related witnesses cannot be automatically discarded; their evidence should be assessed for consistency and reliability.
• A dying declaration, if reliable, can form the sole basis of conviction, especially when corroborated by other evidence.
• Courts should not cast aspersions on public officers without supporting evidence.
• Minor variations in witness testimonies do not necessarily discredit the core of the prosecution’s case.

The judgment reinforces the legal principles regarding the admissibility and reliability of evidence in criminal cases. It clarifies that the testimony of close relatives should not be automatically dismissed and that a dying declaration, if found reliable, can be a strong piece of evidence.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction by the High Court was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the evidence of related witnesses should not be automatically discarded and that a dying declaration, if reliable, can be the sole basis for conviction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the existing legal position on the admissibility and reliability of eyewitness testimony and dying declarations. There was no change in the previous position of law; rather, the court reiterated and applied existing principles to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Laltu Ghosh, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict him for the murder of Keshab. The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4, along with the dying declaration, were consistent and reliable, and that the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. This judgment reinforces the principles that the testimony of related witnesses should not be automatically discarded, and that a dying declaration can be a strong piece of evidence if found reliable.