Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Despite Co-accused Acquittal: Pappi @ Mehboob vs. State of Rajasthan (2019)

Date of the Judgment: February 5, 2019

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2009

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder even if all their co-accused have been acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the main accused was convicted of murder, while his co-accused were acquitted by the High Court. This judgment clarifies that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically warrant the acquittal of the main accused if there is sufficient direct evidence against them. The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

On January 15, 1998, Guddu @ Shehjad was attacked while returning from Meenawala Baba’s Dargah. According to the eyewitness Yunus (PW-6), the assault was carried out by Pappi @ Mehboob (Accused No.1), Idrish (Accused No.2), Laxman (Accused No.5), Hemu @ Hemant (Accused No.6), Gyani @ Lalit Kumar Singh (Accused No.4), and two other individuals. These individuals were armed with swords and repeatedly attacked Guddu. When Yunus tried to intervene, he was also attacked by Idrish, sustaining a sword injury on his left hand. The assault continued until Guddu succumbed to his injuries.

The police filed a charge sheet, and the case was presented before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, (Fast Track), Kota. While seven individuals were implicated, Idrish and Shamsu (Accused No.7) were absconding and could not be tried. The trial proceeded against Pappi, Sabir (Accused No.3), Gyani, Laxman, and Hemu. The Trial Court found Pappi, Hemu, Gyani, and Laxman guilty under Sections 148, 302, and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while Sabir was acquitted. Pappi, Hemu, Gyani, and Laxman were acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 307, 307/149, and 323/149 IPC.

Pappi, Gyani, and Hemu appealed to the High Court, as did Laxman separately. The High Court dismissed Pappi’s appeal, upholding his conviction under Section 302 IPC, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 148 and 324/149 IPC. The High Court allowed the appeals of Gyani, Hemu, and Laxman, acquitting them of all charges. Thus, Pappi alone remained convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Pappi, Hemu, Gyani, and Laxman under Sections 148, 302, and 324/149 of the IPC, while acquitting Sabir. Pappi, Gyani, and Hemu appealed to the High Court, as did Laxman separately. The High Court upheld Pappi’s conviction under Section 302 IPC but acquitted him of charges under Sections 148 and 324/149 IPC. The High Court acquitted Gyani, Hemu, and Laxman, stating that their cases were not distinguishable from that of Shamsu (who was not charge-sheeted) and Sabir (who was acquitted). Pappi, being the only one convicted, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which 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.” The case revolves around whether the appellant, Pappi, could be convicted under this section when his co-accused were acquitted. The High Court acquitted the co-accused based on the reasoning that their role was identical to that of Sabir, who was acquitted, and Shamsu, who was not charge-sheeted. The Supreme Court had to determine if this was a valid ground to acquit Pappi, despite direct evidence against him.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the quality of evidence was insufficient to record a finding of guilt against him.
• The appellant contended that since the Trial Court acquitted Sabir (Accused No.3), and the High Court acquitted Gyani, Hemu, and Laxman, he should also be acquitted for the same reasons.
• The appellant relied on the High Court’s reasoning that the case of Gyani, Hemu, and Laxman was not distinguishable from that of Shamsu and Sabir.
• The appellant argued that there was no clear evidence to show which injury was caused by his blow.
• The appellant cited Durga Burman Roy vs. State of Sikkim [(2014) 13 SCC 35] and Sadananda Mondal vs. State of West Bengal [(2013) 15 SCC 293], where the accused were acquitted because the prosecution failed to provide substantive evidence, and co-accused were acquitted.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State of Rajasthan argued that there was credible evidence against the appellant, specifically the testimony of Yunus (PW-6) and Rashid (PW-9).
• The State highlighted that Yunus (PW-6) was an injured eyewitness, and Rashid (PW-9) was an independent eyewitness, both of whom identified the appellant.
• The State emphasized that the appellant was identified as the one who gave the first blow with a sword.
• The State pointed out that the High Court did not doubt the evidence of Yunus and Rashid, and the Trial Court also relied on the recovery of the sword from the appellant.
• The State argued that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on different grounds and should not affect the conviction of the appellant, against whom there was direct evidence.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the fact that Sabir (Accused No.3) was acquitted by the Trial Court and the co-accused Gyani (Accused No.4), Hemu (Accused No.6), and Laxman (Accused No.5) were acquitted by the High Court can, by itself, be the basis to acquit the appellant – Pappi (Accused No.1)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Cited:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court distinguished Durga Burman Roy vs. State of Sikkim [(2014) 13 SCC 35]* because in that case, the prosecution had failed to present any substantive evidence against the accused, unlike in the present case.

✓ The Court distinguished Sadananda Mondal vs. State of West Bengal [(2013) 15 SCC 293]* because in that case, the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the co-accused were acquitted, unlike in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the direct and credible evidence against the appellant, Pappi. The testimony of the injured eyewitness, Yunus (PW-6), and the independent eyewitness, Rashid (PW-9), played a crucial role. The fact that Pappi initiated the assault by giving the first blow with a sword was a significant factor. The Court also considered the severity of the injuries, the recovery of the sword from the appellant, and the fact that the High Court did not doubt the credibility of the eyewitnesses. The Court emphasized that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on different grounds and did not negate the direct evidence against Pappi. The Court also distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, noting that those cases lacked direct evidence against the accused, unlike the present case.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that since the co-accused were acquitted, the appellant should also be acquitted. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on different grounds. The Court noted that the High Court had acquitted the co-accused because their case was indistinguishable from that of Shamsu, who was not charge-sheeted, and Sabir, who was acquitted. However, the Court pointed out that the evidence against Pappi was direct and credible, and therefore, his conviction should be upheld. The Court also considered the argument that there was no clear evidence to show which injury was caused by the appellant’s blow. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant gave the first blow and continued the assault, contributing to the victim’s death. The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of Pappi under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the acquittal of some accused does not automatically lead to the acquittal of others if there is sufficient evidence against them. The Court emphasized the importance of direct evidence and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The Court also considered the factual matrix of the case, including the number and nature of injuries suffered by the deceased.

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

• The direct evidence of Yunus (PW-6) and Rashid (PW-9) was credible and unshaken.
• The appellant was identified as the one who gave the first sword blow.
• The appellant continued the assault, contributing to the victim’s death.
• The High Court did not doubt the credibility of the eyewitnesses.
• The acquittal of the co-accused was based on different grounds.

“The argument of the appellant that there is no clear evidence to show as to which injury was caused by the blow given by the appellant, in our view, is devoid of merit.”

“The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that deceased Guddu suffered as many as 67 injuries, most of which were incised wounds caused by sharp weapon like sword.”

“Suffice it to observe that the acquittal of the co-accused by giving benefit of doubt, by itself can be no ground to discard the otherwise reliable evidence which has remained unshaken, pointing towards the complicity of the appellant in the commission of crime.”

Key Takeaways

• The acquittal of co-accused persons does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the main accused if there is sufficient direct evidence against them.
• Direct eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant weight in criminal cases.
• The court will consider the specific role of each accused in the commission of the crime.
• The court will not discard reliable evidence against one accused merely because other co-accused were acquitted on different grounds.

This judgment reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own merits, based on the evidence presented against each accused. It clarifies that the benefit of doubt given to some accused does not automatically extend to others if there is sufficient evidence against them. This decision could have a significant impact on future criminal cases, emphasizing the importance of direct evidence and the credibility of eyewitness testimony.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and cancelled the bail bond of the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the acquittal of co-accused persons does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the main accused if there is sufficient direct evidence against them. This judgment clarifies that each case must be decided on its own merits, based on the evidence presented against each accused, and that the benefit of doubt given to some accused does not automatically extend to others if there is sufficient evidence against them. This does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pappi @ Mehboob under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, despite the acquittal of his co-accused by the High Court. The Court emphasized that direct evidence against Pappi, particularly the testimony of eyewitnesses Yunus and Rashid, was credible and sufficient to establish his guilt. The Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused on different grounds did not negate the evidence against Pappi. This judgment reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own merits and that the benefit of doubt given to some accused does not automatically extend to others if there is sufficient evidence against them.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Murder, Eyewitness Testimony, Direct Evidence, Acquittal of Co-accused

FAQ

Q: Can I be convicted of a crime even if my co-accused are acquitted?

A: Yes, if there is sufficient direct evidence against you, you can be convicted even if your co-accused are acquitted. The court will consider the specific role and evidence against each accused individually.

Q: What is considered direct evidence in a criminal case?

A: Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, and any other evidence that directly links you to the crime, such as a weapon recovered from you or your confession.

Q: Does the acquittal of a co-accused mean that I will also be acquitted?

A: Not necessarily. If the acquittal of your co-accused is based on different grounds and there is sufficient direct evidence against you, you can still be convicted.

Q: What should I do if I am accused of a crime?

A: If you are accused of a crime, it is essential to seek legal counsel immediately. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and navigate the legal process.

Q: How does the court determine the credibility of an eyewitness?

A: The court assesses the credibility of an eyewitness by considering factors such as their consistency, their presence at the scene of the crime, and whether their testimony is corroborated by other evidence. The court also considers if the witness is injured.