Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 1048

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Can inconsistencies in witness statements and a delay in filing a First Information Report (FIR) invalidate a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had overturned a trial court’s conviction. This case examines the importance of eye witness testimony and corroborating evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On July 30, 2003, at approximately 9:00 PM, Bharat Singh, along with his son Lallu Singh, Lallu Singh’s wife Shivpati, Dheerendra Singh (PW-1), Monu (PW-2), and Meenu, were returning home from their fields. Near the huts of Hanuman alias Mana, they were ambushed by Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir, Mehngu, and Prem Yadav, who fired upon Lallu Singh with country-made pistols and guns. Lallu Singh died at the scene, and the assailants fled. The incident was allegedly the result of a prior altercation three days earlier, where the deceased had been threatened by some of the accused.

Due to heavy rain and fear of the accused, the incident was not reported immediately. The complaint was lodged by Bharat Singh on July 31, 2003, at 10:00 AM, leading to the registration of FIR No. 103 of 2003 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 120B of the IPC. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir, Mehngu, Prem Yadav, Shiv Charan, and Ram Gupta under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 120B of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court examined seven prosecution witnesses, including two eye witnesses Dheerendra Singh (PW-1) and Monu (PW-2), and a medical professional, PW-4, who conducted the post-mortem. The trial court found the eye witness testimony credible and convicted all four accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Allahabad overturned the trial court’s decision, citing a delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the evidence. The State of U.P. then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 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 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states, “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section allows the court to examine the accused and question them on the evidence presented against them. It is intended to allow the accused to explain the circumstances against them.

Arguments

The following arguments were presented by the parties:

Arguments by the State of U.P. (Appellant)

• The State argued that the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s conviction. The eye witness testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was consistent and reliable.

• The ballistic report which confirmed that the empty cartridges recovered from the scene of the crime were fired from the gun recovered from the accused Prem Yadav, was a crucial piece of evidence.

• The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the prosecution due to heavy rain and fear of the accused.

• Minor inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses should not be a reason to discard their testimony.

Arguments by the Accused (Respondents)

• The defense argued that there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR, which raises doubts about the prosecution’s case.

• The High Court rightly pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

• The ballistic expert’s report was not put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which is mandatory.

• The prosecution failed to explain the lacerated injuries on the deceased’s body.

• The fact that other family members present at the scene did not sustain injuries raises doubt about the prosecution’s version.

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 conviction based on the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the eye witness testimony?
2. Whether the ballistic expert’s report could be used as evidence against the accused when it was not specifically put to them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)?
3. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the ballistic evidence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165: The High Court had relied upon this case to state that the ballistic expert’s opinion cannot be held against the accused if it was not put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different and therefore, the decision was not applicable to the present case. In Pancho, there was no evidence to show who had custody of the pistol for six months.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against accused Prem Yadav and upheld his conviction. The appeals pertaining to the other accused were dismissed.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165:* The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different. The Court held that the High Court wrongly relied on this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of eye witness testimony, especially when corroborated by other evidence. The Court noted that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and found them to be trustworthy. The ballistic evidence was considered a crucial corroborating factor. The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court had misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence before it.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court stated, “The trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and observing the demeanour of PW-1 and PW-2, found that evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is trustworthy and their identification of the accused persons cannot be doubted.”

The court further noted, “Merely because there was a delay in receipt of gun and the empty cartridges by the ballistic expert, the incriminating circumstances emanating from the opinion of the ballistic expert cannot be brushed aside.”

The Court also observed, “Even assuming that the question regarding the ballistic expert’s evidence has not been put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P .C., in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it must be held that it has caused no prejudice to the accused.”

Key Takeaways

• Eye witness testimony is a crucial piece of evidence in criminal cases, especially when corroborated by other evidence.
• Minor inconsistencies in witness statements should not automatically invalidate their testimony.
• Delay in lodging an FIR can be excused if there is a reasonable explanation.
• Ballistic evidence is a strong corroborative piece of evidence in cases involving firearms.
• Omission to put a question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not invalidate the evidence, if it does not cause prejudice to the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that accused Prem Yadav shall surrender/be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the evidence of eye witnesses, when found to be credible, can be the basis of conviction, especially when it is corroborated by other evidence such as ballistic reports. The Supreme Court clarified that minor inconsistencies in witness statements and delay in lodging the FIR, if reasonably explained, are not sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction. This case reinforces the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and the significance of corroborating evidence in criminal trials. This decision does not change the existing law, but clarifies its application in cases with similar facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir underscores the importance of eye witness testimony and corroborating evidence in criminal trials. The Court’s judgment reinforces that minor inconsistencies should not automatically invalidate witness testimony, especially when supported by other evidence. The decision provides a clear framework for evaluating evidence in criminal cases, ensuring that justice is served.