Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Fainul Khan vs. State of Jharkhand (4 October 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 October 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Navin Sinha, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when there are minor discrepancies in witness testimonies and a possibly defective charge? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Fainul Khan vs. State of Jharkhand. This case revolves around an incident of assault leading to death, where the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Supreme Court examined the validity of this conviction, considering arguments about procedural errors and inconsistencies in evidence. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The incident occurred on November 1, 1983, at approximately 6:30 PM. The accused, including the appellants, were allegedly armed with spears and lathis. The prosecution’s case is that the accused assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were presented as injured eyewitnesses, and P.W. 6 also claimed to be an eyewitness. The police report was filed by P.W. 8 at the hospital.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Shri Sidharth Luthra, raised several arguments:

• Defective Charge: The charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was defective as it was framed against only four persons without the aid of Sections 141 and 146 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Inadequate Examination under Section 313 CrPC: The appellants were prejudiced because the questions posed to them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) were perfunctory and did not cover all relevant accusations.
• Inconsistent Prosecution Evidence:
  • P.W. 7 claimed lathi injuries on his thigh and leg, while P.Ws. 6 and 8 were silent on the role of appellant Fainul Khan.
  • Appellant Mir Shaukat was said to have assaulted the thigh of P.Ws. 6 and 7, contradicting the FIR, which stated he hit P.W. 8 on the head.
• P.W. 6 Not an Eyewitness: P.W. 6 arrived after the incident, upon hearing a commotion, and did not witness the assault.
• Discrediting of Witnesses: P.Ws. 6 and 8 were related to the deceased, and P.Ws. 7 and 8’s claims of being injured eyewitnesses were challenged due to the lack of injury reports.
• Omnibus Allegations: The allegations of assault by the appellants with lathis were omnibus, given only one bruise was found on the deceased’s upper arm.
• No Common Object: There was no common object as the appellants could have individually assaulted the deceased on sensitive body parts if that was the intention.
• Lesser Offence: The appellants might be liable for a lesser offense.

The State argued that:

• There was no lacunae in the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and the appellants failed to demonstrate any prejudice.
• The objection regarding Section 313 CrPC was raised belatedly.
• The absence of injury reports for P.Ws. 7 and 8 was a case of defective investigation and did not discredit them as injured eyewitnesses.
• There was ample evidence of the appellants sharing a common object with the co-accused.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, however, the following issues were discernible from the arguments and the judgment:

1. Whether the omission by the trial court to frame a charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused caused prejudice to the appellants.
2. Whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was inadequate and caused prejudice to the appellants.
3. Whether the prosecution evidence was inconsistent.
4. Whether P.W. 6 was an eyewitness.
5. Whether the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 could be relied upon.
6. Whether the appellants shared a common object with the co-accused.
7. Whether the appellants were liable for a lesser offense.

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:

• Masalti vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202: This case was cited by the appellants to argue that the charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was defective and that the appellants were prejudiced. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that it concerned a death sentence and did not consider the principle that objections to procedural irregularities should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
• Ranvir Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 595: This case was cited by the appellants to argue that the appellants were prejudiced due to the inadequate examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the appellants did not demonstrate any prejudice.
• Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam, (2019) SCC Online 1093; 2019 (11) SCALE 458: This case was also cited by the appellants to argue that the appellants were prejudiced due to the inadequate examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the appellants did not demonstrate any prejudice.
• Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 261: This case was cited by the appellants to argue that they may be liable for a lesser offense. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the deceased.
• Shobhit Chamar vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 3 SCC 455: This case was relied upon by the State to argue that notwithstanding the infirmities at the stage of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the conviction can be sustained if the prosecution strongly relied on the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses and the relevant questions were put to the appellants. The Supreme Court followed this precedent.
• Fahim Khan vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 13 SCC 142: This case was relied upon by the State to argue that the objection regarding Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was raised belatedly. The Supreme Court followed this precedent.
• Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 80: This case was relied upon by the Supreme Court to explain the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that it is not sufficient for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular circumstance but he must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice.
• Bejoy Chand Patra v. State of W.B., AIR 1952 SC 105: This case was relied upon by the Supreme Court to explain that it is not sufficient for the accused merely to show that he has not been fully examined as required by Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 313 in the new Code) but he must also show that such examination has materially prejudiced him.
• Rama Shankar Singh v. State of W.B., 1962 Suppl (1) SCR 49: This case was relied upon by the Supreme Court to reiterate the view that the accused must show that the examination under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 313 in the new Code) has materially prejudiced him.
• Sukha vs. State of Rajasthan, 1956 SCR 288: This case was relied upon by the Supreme Court to explain that the court will be slow to entertain question of prejudice when details are not furnished and also the fact that the objection is not taken at an early stage will be taken into account.

Authorities Considered

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Masalti vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202: Distinguished; the court noted that it did not consider the principle that objections to procedural irregularities should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
• Ranvir Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 595: Distinguished; the court noted that the appellants did not demonstrate any prejudice due to inadequate examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam, (2019) SCC Online 1093; 2019 (11) SCALE 458: Distinguished; the court noted that the appellants did not demonstrate any prejudice due to inadequate examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 261: Rejected; the court held that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the deceased.
• Shobhit Chamar vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 3 SCC 455: Followed; the court held that the conviction can be sustained if the prosecution strongly relied on the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses and the relevant questions were put to the appellants.
• Fahim Khan vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 13 SCC 142: Followed; the court held that the objection regarding Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was raised belatedly.
• Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 80: Explained; the court explained the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and held that the accused must show that the non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him.
• Bejoy Chand Patra v. State of W.B., AIR 1952 SC 105: Explained; the court explained that it is not sufficient for the accused merely to show that he has not been fully examined as required by Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 313 in the new Code) but he must also show that such examination has materially prejudiced him.
• Rama Shankar Singh v. State of W.B., 1962 Suppl (1) SCR 49: Explained; the court reiterated the view that the accused must show that the examination under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 313 in the new Code) has materially prejudiced him.
• Sukha vs. State of Rajasthan, 1956 SCR 288: Explained; the court explained that the court will be slow to entertain question of prejudice when details are not furnished and also the fact that the objection is not taken at an early stage will be taken into account.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The presence of credible eyewitness testimony from P.Ws. 7 and 8, who were also injured in the same incident.
• The fact that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault the deceased.
• The lack of demonstrable prejudice to the appellants due to the procedural irregularities.
• The principle that objections to procedural irregularities should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
• The concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the presence of the appellants.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the eyewitness testimonies and the circumstances of the assault, than by legal technicalities.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Omission to frame charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused.

Issue 2: Inadequate examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue 3: Inconsistent prosecution evidence.

Issue 4: Whether P.W. 6 was an eyewitness.

Issue 5: Reliability of P.Ws. 7 and 8’s evidence.

Issue 6: Common object of the accused.

Issue 7: Liability for a lesser offense.

Final Order

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Fainul Khan vs. State of Jharkhand reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony and the concept of common object in cases of unlawful assembly. The Court’s decision highlights that minor discrepancies in witness statements or procedural errors do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The judgment also emphasizes that objections to procedural irregularities should be raised at the earliest opportunity. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the deceased, and that the procedural errors and inconsistencies in evidence did not cause prejudice to the appellants.