Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Fazar Ali vs. State of Assam (21 April 2017)

Can a group of individuals be held liable for murder if they share a common objective, even if not all directly inflicted the fatal blow? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court of India, in Fazar Ali & Ors. vs. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2007, upheld the conviction of eight individuals for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered on April 21, 2017, by a bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The case arose from an incident on November 12, 1993, where twelve individuals attacked the complainant, his father Samsuddin, his brother Abdul Rahman, and his mother-in-law. The accused were armed with weapons like daos, lathis, and daggers. After injuring Samsuddin and Abdul Rahman, the accused allegedly prevented them from being taken to the hospital for approximately three hours. Abdul Rahman later died the same day.

Afazuddin, son of Samsuddin and brother of the deceased Abdul Rahman, filed a written complaint. The complaint initially named five accused, with a mention of seven others. The case was initially registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302 (murder) was added after Abdul Rahman’s death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted nine accused under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court acquitted two other accused. The convicted individuals were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder.

The accused then appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision on December 21, 2005. Subsequently, the eight appellants approached the Supreme Court. A cross-case was also registered against Samsuddin and his sons, which resulted in their acquittal by the trial court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object.
  “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the First Information Report (FIR) only named five accused, while the charge sheet included twelve. They contended that since Afazuddin, the complainant and an eyewitness, did not name all twelve in the FIR, the other accused were falsely implicated. Further, they argued that there were contradictions between the statements made by the witnesses in court and those recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The State argued that the FIR mentioned “seven others” besides the five named accused. The State also contended that minor contradictions in witness statements do not undermine the credibility of their evidence. The prosecution highlighted that all the accused were armed and caused injuries, and that they prevented the injured from receiving medical attention for three hours.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the non-mention of seven accused in the FIR, despite the mention of “seven others,” is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
2. Whether contradictions in the statements of witnesses recorded in court and those recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, make their evidence unreliable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328, Supreme Court of India: This case held that minor discrepancies in witness statements should be ignored, and it is unreasonable to expect a perfect report of the incident.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328* to emphasize that minor discrepancies in witness statements should be ignored. The court stated that it is unreasonable to expect a perfect account of the incident from witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent eyewitness accounts, the presence of the accused at the scene, and the fact that the accused prevented the injured from receiving medical attention. The court emphasized the common object of the unlawful assembly, which was to assault the victims. The court also noted that the incident occurred in the courtyard of the complainant’s house, making the presence of family members natural.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the FIR, while not naming all accused, did mention “seven others,” indicating that more than five individuals were involved. The court also noted that the informant, Afazuddin, explained that he had informed the writer of the FIR about the other accused, but being illiterate, he only put his thumb impression on the document.

Regarding the contradictions in witness statements, the court found them to be minor and not affecting the core of their evidence. The court relied on the precedent set in Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, stating that minor discrepancies are common and do not invalidate the entire testimony. The Supreme Court also highlighted the fact that the accused prevented the injured from receiving medical attention for three hours, which further established their common intention.

The court emphasized the common object of the unlawful assembly, which was to assault and injure the victims. The court quoted the High Court’s observation:
“In this case, we find from the evidence on record that the intention/object of the unlawful assembly was to assault and teach the victims a lesson and for that purpose they came armed with weapons in the early hours of the day and they also did not remain satisfied by assaulting the accused persons and causing injuries on them.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court and High Court did not err in convicting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Key Takeaways

• An FIR does not need to name all accused if it indicates the involvement of others.
• Minor contradictions in witness statements do not invalidate their entire testimony.
• Members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object, even if they did not directly inflict the fatal blow.
• Preventing injured individuals from receiving medical attention can be seen as evidence of a common intention to cause harm.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the non-mention of all accused in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution if the FIR indicates the involvement of others and the witnesses’ statements are consistent on the core facts. This judgment reinforces the principle of common intention under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and clarifies that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not invalidate their testimony. It does not change any previous positions of law but rather reaffirms existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the eight appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible and that the accused shared a common intention to harm the victims.