Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Dismisses Alibi Plea: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 87
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a plea of alibi be accepted without concrete evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing appeals in a murder case. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and the limitations of an inquest report. This judgment highlights the stringent standards required to prove a plea of alibi and the court’s reliance on medical and ocular evidence in criminal cases. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, who delivered a unanimous verdict.

Case Background

On March 7, 2000, at approximately 1:00 PM, Vikas Kumar Singh was attacked while walking towards Bhandar for his physical exercise. According to the prosecution, six individuals, including Pappu Tiwari and Law Tiwari, ambushed him. Pappu Tiwari allegedly shot Vikas, causing him to fall, after which the other accused inflicted multiple knife wounds. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the victim’s brother, witnessed the attack. The accused then fled the scene, reportedly in a Maruti Van belonging to Pintu Tiwari. An FIR was registered based on Pankaj’s statement, leading to charges under Section 302 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the six accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all six accused on May 27, 2002, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Pappu Tiwari received an additional three-year sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the trial court’s decision on May 7, 2012. However, Pintu Tiwari, being a minor at the time of the incident, was released after serving more than three years. Sanjay Ram and Uday Pal accepted the High Court’s decision. Pappu Tiwari initially failed to surrender, leading to the dismissal of his SLP. Law Tiwari and Ajay Pal jointly filed an SLP, which was dismissed for Ajay Pal, but leave was granted for Law Tiwari. Pappu Tiwari’s SLP was later restored after a review petition was allowed. The appeals of Pappu Tiwari and Law Tiwari were then heard by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for using arms without a license.
• Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section mandates the procedure for preliminary investigation.
• Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with police inquiry and report on suicide, etc.
• Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section pertains to the irrelevance of previous bad character except in reply.

The legal framework ensures that criminal cases are thoroughly investigated, and the accused are given a fair trial, while also ensuring that the guilty are punished according to the law.

Arguments

Arguments by Law Tiwari:

• Law Tiwari’s primary argument was that he had an alibi. He claimed that he had fractured his leg on January 24, 2000, and was unable to participate in the crime on March 7, 2000.
• He presented two defense witnesses who testified about his injury and treatment.
• He argued that the trial court did not properly consider his alibi plea.

Arguments by the State:

• The State argued that Law Tiwari’s alibi was not supported by sufficient evidence. The State highlighted that neither the x-ray plate nor the doctor’s advice was produced in court.
• The State presented three eyewitnesses who identified Law Tiwari as one of the assailants.
• The State pointed out that Law Tiwari was absconding after the incident and was arrested later.
• The State also mentioned another case against Law Tiwari, where he was initially convicted but later acquitted.
• The State contended that Law Tiwari’s conduct during custody was also improper.

Arguments by Pappu Tiwari:

• Pappu Tiwari argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
• He contended that there were contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
• He argued that the FIR was ante-timed, as it was recorded in the afternoon but reached the court the next day.
• He pointed out discrepancies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report, particularly regarding the number of injuries and the absence of gunshot wounds in the inquest report.
• He argued that the medical evidence did not match the ocular evidence, especially regarding the distance from which the firearm was used and the timing of the victim’s last meal.
• He also raised concerns about the investigation, the absence of independent witnesses, and the IO’s reference to the accused’s antecedents.

Arguments by the State (in response to Pappu Tiwari):

• The State argued that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and credible.
• The State explained the sequence of events, showing that the FIR was not ante-timed.
• The State argued that the inquest report was not substantive evidence and that the post-mortem report was more reliable.
• The State clarified that the medical officer did not give an opinion on the distance of the gunshot due to the uncertain quality of the weapon.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the plea of alibi raised by Law Tiwari was adequately substantiated.
2. Whether the prosecution had proven its case against Pappu Tiwari beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the discrepancies between the inquest report and post-mortem report were significant enough to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
4. Whether the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [CITATION] and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana [CITATION], emphasizing that the burden of proving an alibi lies heavily on the accused.
• The Court distinguished Sudarshan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION], noting that the FIR reached the court in a timely manner in the present case.
• The Court distinguished Maula Bux & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], stating that the police officer who prepared the inquest panchnama is not an expert in medical jurisprudence.
• The Court followed Suresh Roy v. State of Bihar [CITATION], Surjan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION], Pedda Narayana & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION], Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. [CITATION], and Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [CITATION], clarifying that an inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be pitted against the evidence of the medical witness.
• The Court followed Prahlad Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. [CITATION], stating that where the weapon and ammunition are of uncertain make and quality, the normal pellet pattern based on a standard weapon and ammunition cannot be applied with accuracy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to be consistent and credible. The court emphasized that the testimony of a close relative (Pankaj Kumar Singh) cannot be dismissed solely based on that relationship.
• Insufficient Evidence for Alibi: Law Tiwari failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his alibi. The court noted the absence of crucial evidence like the x-ray plate and the doctor’s testimony.
• Timely Registration of FIR: The court found no evidence to support the claim that the FIR was ante-timed. The sequence of events showed that the FIR was registered promptly after the incident.
• Reliability of Post-Mortem Report: The court emphasized that the post-mortem report is more reliable than the inquest report, which is not considered substantive evidence.
• Consistency of Medical and Ocular Evidence: The court found no significant discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence.
• Burden of Proof: The court reiterated that the burden of proving an alibi lies heavily on the accused, which Law Tiwari failed to discharge.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations and rejected them. The court emphasized that the burden of proving an alibi lies heavily on the accused. The court also clarified that the inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be pitted against the evidence of the medical witness.

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

• The prosecution presented credible eyewitness testimonies.
• Law Tiwari failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his alibi.
• The FIR was registered promptly after the incident.
• The post-mortem report is more reliable than the inquest report.
• There were no significant discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence.

“The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellants and the appellants have failed to bring on record any such evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their plea of alibi.”

“The inquest report is not really an evidence by itself and cannot be pitted against the evidence of the medical witness in court.”

“On the touchstone of the principles laid down aforesaid it can hardly be said that the mandate of law under Section 157 Cr.P.C. has not been met.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh delivered a unanimous verdict.

The judgment reinforces the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases and the high standards required to prove a plea of alibi. It also clarifies the role and limitations of an inquest report.

Key Takeaways

• The burden of proving an alibi lies heavily on the accused.
• An inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be pitted against the evidence of the medical witness in court.
• Eyewitness testimonies, if credible, are given significant weight.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but this does not mean that the court should look for excuses to acquit the accused.
• The medical evidence and ocular evidence should be consistent with each other.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation and credible evidence in criminal cases. It also highlights the need for the accused to provide concrete proof when raising a plea of alibi.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a plea of alibi must be substantiated with concrete evidence, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the accused. The judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the burden of proof, the reliability of evidence, and the limitations of an inquest report. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the court has reiterated the importance of these principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of both Pappu Tiwari and Law Tiwari, upholding their convictions. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that Law Tiwari had failed to substantiate his plea of alibi. The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the limitations of an inquest report in criminal cases. This case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required in criminal trials and the need for a thorough and impartial investigation.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Alibi
  • Evidence
  • Eyewitness Testimony
  • Inquest Report
  • Post-Mortem Report
  • Burden of Proof
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 27, Arms Act, 1959
  • Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 53, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Arms Act, 1959
  • Section 27, Arms Act, 1959
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Section 53, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

FAQ

Q: What is a plea of alibi?
A: A plea of alibi is a defense where the accused claims that they were at a different place when the crime was committed and therefore could not have committed the crime.

Q: What is an inquest report?
A: An inquest report is a preliminary report prepared by the police to determine the apparent cause of death in suspicious or unnatural circumstances. It is not considered substantive evidence in court.

Q: What is a post-mortem report?
A: A post-mortem report is a detailed medical examination of a deceased person’s body to determine the cause and manner of death. It is considered more reliable than an inquest report.

Q: What is the significance of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case?
A: Eyewitness testimony is crucial in criminal cases. If the testimony is found to be credible, it can be a strong piece of evidence against the accused.

Q: What does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean in a criminal case?
A: “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that there is no other logical explanation than the accused committed the crime. The standard is very high, but it does not mean that there must be no doubt at all.

Q: What happens if the medical evidence and ocular evidence contradict each other?
A: If medical and ocular evidence contradict each other, it can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case. However, the court will examine all the evidence and circumstances to determine which evidence is more reliable.

Q: What is the burden of proof in a criminal case?
A: In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If the accused raises a plea of alibi, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that they were not present at the scene of the crime.