LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction for murder can be upheld based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, even if the weapon is not recovered and there’s no charring on the body from a close-range gunshot.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Prabhash Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Judgment Date: 12 September 2019

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 881

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on eyewitness testimony, even when the murder weapon isn’t found and there’s no clear evidence of close-range firing? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed this crucial question, ultimately affirming the conviction based on the reliability of eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence. The bench comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, who delivered the unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Ashok Rewani, which occurred on January 22, 1993, at Mahuwar Chawk within the Harla police station jurisdiction in Bokaro, Jharkhand. The incident took place around 10 PM. Ashok Rewani was having tea with his relatives, Nun Chand Rewani (P.W.3) and Rupesh Kumar Rewani (P.W.1), when the second appellant (since deceased) arrived and began abusing the deceased. Following this, the surviving appellant, Prabhash Kumar Singh, was called and instigated to kill Ashok Rewani. Prabhash Kumar Singh then shot Ashok Rewani, causing his death.

The case was initiated based on the “Fardbeyan” (statement) of Nun Chand Rewani (P.W.3), recorded at Bokaro General Hospital, where the deceased was taken after the incident. The Sub-Inspector, Inderdeo Singh (P.W.4), was the Investigating Officer (I.O.).

Timeline

Date Event
January 22, 1993 Ashok Rewani was murdered at Mahuwar Chawk, Bokaro, Jharkhand, around 10 PM.
January 23, 1993 Post-mortem conducted on the body of Ashok Rewani at 11 AM.
N/A “Fardbeyan” of Nun Chand Rewani (P.W.3) recorded at Bokaro General Hospital.
N/A Charge sheet submitted against both the accused persons under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
N/A Trial Court convicts the surviving appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the deceased appellant under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
N/A High Court of Jharkhand confirms the judgment of the Trial Court.
September 12, 2019 Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the conviction.

Course of Proceedings

A charge sheet was submitted against both accused under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The surviving appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the deceased appellant was charged under Sections 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including eyewitnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, the I.O. (P.W.4), and the autopsy surgeon (P.W.5). The Trial Court found both appellants guilty, and the High Court of Jharkhand upheld this decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 302: 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 34: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “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.”
  • Section 109: This section defines the punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. It states, “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.”

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Tender Rejection in Foreign Funded Project: National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Limited (2022)

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The medical evidence was inconclusive, and the bullet injury could not be definitively linked to the death of the deceased. There was no charring on the body, which is typical of close-range firing, and the bullet was not recovered.
  • There was no collection of blood material at the scene.
  • The eyewitnesses’ identification of the accused was unreliable due to the night-time setting.
  • An alternative motive for the murder existed, related to the deceased’s relationship with a girl from an indigenous tribe, suggesting the appellant was falsely implicated.
  • There was no evidence of a scuffle, yet the deceased’s rib was fractured.
  • The presence of digested food in the deceased’s stomach contradicted the time of death as stated by the eyewitnesses.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • The eyewitness accounts of P.W.1 and P.W.3 were consistent and reliable, identifying the surviving appellant as the shooter.
  • The medical evidence, including the post-mortem report and the autopsy surgeon’s deposition (P.W.5), confirmed that the cause of death was a bullet injury.
  • The absence of charring does not negate the possibility of a gunshot injury, as char marks only occur in very short-range firing.
  • The presence of digested food in the stomach was explained by the fact that digestion can continue after death, as referenced in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology.
  • The location of the crime was within a city with sufficient lighting, and near tea shops which would have had lighting, negating the claim of poor visibility.

Submissions Table

Main Submission Appellant’s Sub-Submissions Respondent’s Sub-Submissions
Medical Evidence
  • Inconclusive medical evidence.
  • No charring on the body from close range firing.
  • Bullet or part thereof not recovered.
  • No blood material collected.
  • Post-mortem report and autopsy surgeon confirmed bullet injury as cause of death.
  • Char marks only occur in very short-range firing.
Eyewitness Testimony
  • Unreliable identification due to night time.
  • Consistent and reliable accounts of P.W.1 and P.W.3.
  • No contrary suggestions put during cross-examination.
Alternative Motive
  • Deceased’s relationship with a girl from an indigenous tribe.
  • False implication of the appellant.
  • No evidence beyond suggestion during cross-examination.
Time of Death
  • Presence of digested food in stomach contradicts time of death.
  • Digestion can continue after death.
Visibility
  • Night time incident.
  • Crime committed in a city with sufficient lighting.
  • Near tea shops which would have had lighting.
Fracture of Rib
  • No evidence of scuffle to cause fracture.
  • Fracture could be caused by a fall.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

  • Whether the conviction for murder can be upheld based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, even if the weapon is not recovered and there’s no charring on the body from a close-range gunshot.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Treatment
Whether the conviction for murder can be upheld based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, even if the weapon is not recovered and there’s no charring on the body from a close-range gunshot. The Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence were sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt. The absence of the weapon and charring did not undermine the prosecution’s case.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in consumer cases after 2019 Act: Neena Aneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates (16 March 2021)

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

  • Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, page 450: The court referred to this book to support the argument that the process of digestion can continue for a long time after death.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Authority How it was used by the Court
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, page 450 The Court used this authority to explain that digestion can continue after death, thus negating the appellant’s argument regarding the presence of digested food in the deceased’s stomach.

Judgment

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

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellant’s argument on inconclusive medical evidence Rejected. The court held that the post-mortem report and the autopsy surgeon’s deposition were sufficient to establish the cause of death as a bullet injury.
Appellant’s argument on the absence of charring Rejected. The court noted that charring occurs only in very short-range firing and its absence does not negate a gunshot injury.
Appellant’s argument on unreliable eyewitness identification Rejected. The court found the eyewitness accounts to be consistent and reliable.
Appellant’s argument on alternative motive Rejected. The court found no evidence to support the existence of an alternative motive.
Appellant’s argument on time of death Rejected. The court relied on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology to explain that digestion can continue after death.
Appellant’s argument on lack of visibility Rejected. The court noted that the crime was committed in a city with sufficient lighting.
Appellant’s argument on fracture of rib Rejected. The court accepted the medical opinion that the fracture could have been caused by a fall.
Respondent’s argument on eyewitness accounts Accepted. The court found the eyewitness accounts to be consistent and reliable.
Respondent’s argument on medical evidence Accepted. The court relied on the post-mortem report and the autopsy surgeon’s deposition.
Respondent’s argument on digestion Accepted. The court relied on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology to explain that digestion can continue after death.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, page 450: The court relied on this authority to explain that the process of digestion can continue after death, thus negating the appellant’s argument regarding the presence of digested food in the deceased’s stomach.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and the corroborating medical evidence. The court emphasized that the consistent testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3, along with the post-mortem report and the autopsy surgeon’s deposition, were sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt. The court also addressed and dismissed the appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of charring, the non-recovery of the weapon, and the presence of digested food in the deceased’s stomach.

Sentiment Percentage
Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony 40%
Corroborating Medical Evidence 30%
Rejection of Appellant’s Arguments 30%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis, primarily based on the eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, and legal interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The factual aspects, such as the eyewitness testimonies and the medical findings, weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

Eyewitnesses (P.W.1 & P.W.3) identify the appellant as the shooter.
↓
Medical evidence (post-mortem report & P.W.5) confirms death by bullet injury.
↓
Appellant argues lack of charring, non-recovery of weapon, alternative motive, and time of death.
↓
Court rejects appellant’s arguments based on medical and scientific explanations and lack of evidence.
↓
Court concludes that eyewitness and medical evidence are sufficient for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of an alternative assailant due to the deceased’s relationship with a girl from an indigenous tribe. However, this was rejected due to the lack of evidence. The court also addressed the argument regarding the digested food in the deceased’s stomach, explaining that digestion can continue after death, based on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. The court concluded that the eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence, were sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

See also  Supreme Court ensures uniform compensation in land acquisition cases: Munshiya vs. State of U.P. (2017)

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

  • The eyewitness accounts were consistent and reliable.
  • The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, establishing the cause of death as a bullet injury.
  • The appellant’s arguments were not supported by evidence or scientific reasoning.

“The Trial Court and the High Court have committed no error on this point in accepting eyewitness account supported by medical evidence.”

“As there is clear eyewitness account of the incident and none of the two eyewitnesses could be shaken during cross-examination and they had stuck to the recollection of the facts relating to the incident, the mere fact that the weapon of assault or the bullet was not recovered cannot demolish the prosecution case.”

“In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

  • Eyewitness testimony, if consistent and reliable, can be a strong basis for conviction in criminal cases.
  • Medical evidence, such as post-mortem reports and autopsy surgeon depositions, plays a crucial role in corroborating eyewitness accounts.
  • The absence of a murder weapon or specific characteristics of a close-range gunshot (like charring) does not automatically negate the prosecution’s case, if other evidence is compelling.
  • The court’s reliance on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology highlights the importance of expert opinions in understanding complex medical issues.
  • The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but this can be achieved through a combination of different types of evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant, who was on bail, to surrender within four weeks. Failing this, the Trial Court was directed to take necessary steps to ensure the appellant undergoes the sentence. A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Trial Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for murder can be upheld based on consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, even if the murder weapon is not recovered and there are no specific signs of close-range firing. This judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence in criminal cases and clarifies that the absence of certain pieces of evidence does not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Prabhash Kumar Singh for the murder of Ashok Rewani. The court’s decision was based on the consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence, emphasizing that these were sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also addressed and rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of the murder weapon, the lack of charring, and the presence of digested food in the deceased’s stomach. This judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in criminal cases.

Source: Prabhash Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar