Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Goutam Joardar vs. State of West Bengal (2021)

Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi

Can a delay in recording witness statements be fatal to a prosecution’s case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while upholding the conviction of multiple individuals in a murder case. The court examined whether the delay in recording the statements of key eyewitnesses was justified and whether their testimonies were credible. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which delayed witness statements can be accepted as evidence. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi, who delivered the unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Paritosh Dey @ Akal. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were known for terrorizing fish traders in the locality. Despite an undertaking to cease their activities, the appellants allegedly ransacked the fish stall of Ajoy Dey (the deceased’s brother) on April 29, 2011, and looted money and fish. Following this incident, the appellants threatened the victim and his brother with dire consequences. On May 8, 2011, at approximately 6:30 AM, the appellants accosted the victim in front of the R.S.P. party office, assaulting him with sharp weapons and shooting him, which resulted in his death. A first information report was lodged by Ajoy Dey, leading to the registration of Balurghat P.S. Case No. 218 of 2011 under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Goutam Joardar, Kartick Das, Biltu Bhattacharya, Shibu Kahar @ Dodan @ Dhuma, and Raju Rabidas @ Shera for offenses under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, while acquitting Babun Sarkar. The convicted individuals were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. Aggrieved, the convicts appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision on March 13, 2019. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section pertains to the use of prohibited arms or ammunition.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses (PW18 and PW19) under Section 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was fatal to the prosecution’s case. They contended that there was no explanation for this delay.
• The appellants relied on the decisions in Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192, Alil Mollah & Another v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 5 SCC 369, and Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96, to support their argument that delayed witness statements should be viewed with suspicion.
• They submitted that apart from the testimonies of PW18 and PW19, there was no other evidence to justify their conviction.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the terror unleashed by the accused was so severe that the witnesses fled in fear. The witnesses came forward only after the investigating machinery took appropriate steps, including the arrest of the accused.
• The State submitted that apart from the eyewitness accounts, there were supporting pieces of evidence in the form of recoveries that were conclusive in nature.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses (PW18 and PW19) was fatal to the prosecution’s case and whether their testimonies were credible.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

• Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 – Supreme Court of India
• Alil Mollah & Another v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 5 SCC 369 – Supreme Court of India
• Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96 – Supreme Court of India

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The court distinguished the facts of the present case from the authorities cited by the appellants, stating that in the present case, the delay was adequately explained by the fear and terror created by the accused. Therefore, the ratio of the authorities cited by the appellants was not applicable in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The Court emphasized the fear and terror created by the accused, which adequately explained the delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses.
• The Court found the testimonies of PW18 and PW19 to be cogent, consistent, and trustworthy.
• The Court noted that the eyewitness accounts were supported by material evidence in the form of recoveries.

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court reasoned that the delay was adequately explained by the fear and terror created by the accused. The Court noted that the witnesses did not come forward immediately due to this fear, and their statements were found to be cogent, consistent, and trustworthy. The Court also noted that the eyewitness accounts were supported by material evidence in the form of recoveries. The Court found no reason to take a different view than the Trial Court and the High Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “It is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye -witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies.”
• “The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained.”
• “Thus, the eye -witness account unfolded through PW18 and PW19 cannot be discarded. We have gone through their testimonies and are convinced that their statements were cogent, consistent and trustworthy.”

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The bench unanimously dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants.

Key Takeaways

• A delay in recording witness statements is not automatically fatal to a prosecution’s case if the delay is adequately explained.
• Fear and terror created by the accused can be a valid reason for a delay in recording witness statements.
• Eyewitness testimonies, if found to be cogent, consistent, and trustworthy, can be relied upon, even if there is a delay in recording them.
• Corroborating evidence, such as recoveries of weapons, can strengthen the prosecution’s case.

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 delay in recording witness statements is not automatically fatal to a prosecution’s case if the delay is adequately explained, particularly in cases where witnesses are terrorized. This judgment reinforces the principle that the credibility of witness testimonies should be assessed based on their consistency and trustworthiness, rather than solely on the timing of their statements. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The Court found that the delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses was adequately explained by the fear created by the accused. The Court also found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were credible and supported by material evidence. This judgment emphasizes that delayed witness statements can be accepted as evidence if the delay is justified and the statements are credible.