Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Gulab vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 December 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 721
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., and Vikram Nath, J. (authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.)

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary witnesses are relatives of the deceased, and the murder weapon is not recovered? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Gulab vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. This case examines the importance of eyewitness testimony, even when those witnesses are related to the victim, and the necessity of ballistic evidence in cases involving firearms. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the credibility of the eyewitness accounts and the establishment of common intention in the crime.

Case Background

On 22 November 1989, Shabbir (PW1) reported to the Mathaundh Police Station in Banda that his brother, Hanifa, was murdered. According to the report, Hanifa was washing up at a pond after work when Idrish, armed with a country-made pistol, and Gulab, armed with a lathi, approached him. Gulab allegedly exhorted Idrish, stating, “the enemy has been found,” after which Idrish shot Hanifa in the chest, resulting in his death. The report also mentioned a previous fight between Hanifa and Idrish about five months prior, which was considered the motive for the murder. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at 10:30 pm, with a stated delay due to fear of the accused. The distance between the crime scene and the police station was 11 kilometers.

The post-mortem examination, conducted on 23 November 1989, confirmed that Hanifa died due to a gunshot wound. The injuries included an entry wound on the left side of the chest and an exit wound on the back, with significant internal bleeding. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 16 December 1989, and charges were framed on 4 March 1991. Idrish was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, while Gulab was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for murder with common intention.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Banda, convicted Idrish under Section 302 of the IPC and Gulab under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Gulab appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, arguing that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the eyewitnesses were relatives of the deceased and their testimonies were contradictory, the motive was against Idrish alone, and Gulab’s role was merely that of exhortation. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s decision. It held that the presence of the eyewitnesses was natural, their testimonies were credible, and the delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the fear of the accused. The High Court also noted that the non-examination of the deceased’s daughter was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Gulab then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around two sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302 of the 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 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.” This section establishes the principle of constructive liability, where individuals can be held responsible for the actions of others if they share a common intention.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that PW-1’s presence at the scene was doubtful as the daughter of the deceased was not examined.
• PW-1 was a planted witness, evident from the five-and-a-half-hour delay in lodging the FIR.
• The eyewitnesses, being relatives, were interested witnesses and their testimonies should be scrutinized with caution.
• There were material inconsistencies in the depositions of the eyewitnesses regarding the position of the deceased when he was shot.
• The High Court acknowledged variations in the statements regarding the nature of the exhortation.
• Prior enmity between the deceased and Idrish suggested false implication of the appellant.
• The evidence did not establish a case of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.
• The weapon used in the crime was not recovered.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The case was based on direct evidence, and non-examination of other witnesses was irrelevant.
• There was no delay in lodging the FIR, considering the distance to the police station and the time of the incident.
• The FIR contained a detailed account of the incident, including the appellant’s role.
• The eyewitnesses were consistent regarding the appellant’s exhortation.
• Prior enmity was specifically brought to the attention of the accused during the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, can be relied upon for conviction.
2. Whether the non-recovery of the weapon and the absence of ballistic evidence are fatal to the prosecution’s case.
3. Whether the evidence establishes a common intention under Section 34 of the IPC to convict the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Mohd. Rojali v. State of Assam [ (2019) 19 SCC 567 ]* to reiterate the distinction between “interested” and “related” witnesses, emphasizing that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness.
• The Supreme Court followed Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [1954 SCR 145]* to emphasize that close relatives are unlikely to falsely implicate an innocent person.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1995) 3 SCC 367 ]*, holding that ballistic evidence is crucial when the firearm and cartridge are recovered, which was not the case here.
• The Supreme Court followed Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1963) 3 SCR 585 ]*, holding that ballistic expert evidence is not mandatory in every case involving a lethal weapon, especially when direct evidence is strong.
• The Supreme Court followed State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh [ (2002) 3 SCC 234 ]*, holding that surrounding circumstances can prove death by a lethal weapon without ballistic examination.
• The Supreme Court followed Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia v. The State of Hyderabad [1955 SCR (1) 1083]* to explain that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds.
• The Supreme Court followed Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2010) 8 SCC 407]* to clarify that common intention can develop on the spot but must be anterior to the commission of the crime.
• The Supreme Court followed Chhota Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2020) 4 SCC 126 ]*, stating that no overt act is needed if there is a common intention.
• The Supreme Court followed Dhanpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2020) 5 SCC 705 ]*, holding that exhortation to kill can establish common intention.
• The Supreme Court followed Sandeep v. State of Haryana [2021 SCC OnLine SC 642]*, holding that exhortation immediately before a co-accused fired a shot proves involvement in the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses, despite their relationship to the deceased. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that witnesses are relatives does not automatically discredit their evidence. The Court also highlighted the appellant’s role in exhorting Idrish, which established a common intention to commit the crime. The absence of the murder weapon and ballistic evidence was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case, given the strong direct evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of false implication due to prior enmity and inconsistencies in witness statements. However, it rejected these interpretations, finding the eyewitness accounts to be consistent and credible overall. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s exhortation to kill the deceased, coupled with his presence at the scene with a weapon, established a common intention with Idrish to commit the murder.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence, including the eyewitness testimonies, the circumstances of the incident, and the relevant legal provisions. The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

“It is well- settled in law that the mere fact that relatives of the deceased are the only witnesses is not sufficient to discredit their cogent testimonies.”

“The evidence on the record clearly establishes a common intention in pursuance of which the appellant exhorted Idrish to kill the deceased.”

“The prosecution is not required to prove that there was an elaborate plan between the accused to kill the deceased or a plan was in existence for a long time.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of related witnesses can be credible and reliable if it is consistent and cogent.
• Ballistic evidence is not mandatory in every case involving a firearm, especially when there is strong direct evidence.
• Exhortation to commit a crime can establish common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.
• The presence of an accused at the scene of the crime with a weapon, coupled with an exhortation, can be sufficient to prove their involvement in the crime.

This judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, even when those witnesses are related to the victim. It also clarifies that while ballistic evidence is important, it is not always necessary for a conviction if there is other credible evidence. The judgment may have implications for future cases where the prosecution relies on related witnesses and lacks ballistic evidence.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of related witnesses can be credible and reliable if it is consistent and cogent, and ballistic evidence is not mandatory in every case involving a firearm if there is strong direct evidence. This judgment reinforces established legal principles regarding the evaluation of eyewitness testimony and the application of Section 34 of the IPC. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Gulab vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, despite being relatives of the deceased, were credible and consistent. The Court also held that the non-recovery of the weapon and the absence of ballistic evidence were not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The appellant’s exhortation to kill the deceased established a common intention, making him liable for the murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of direct eyewitness testimony and the principle of constructive liability.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
• Murder
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Common Intention

FAQ

Q: Can a person be convicted of murder based on the testimony of relatives of the deceased?

A: Yes, if the testimony is found to be credible and consistent. The Supreme Court has clarified that being a relative does not automatically make a witness unreliable.

Q: Is ballistic evidence always necessary in a murder case involving a firearm?

A: No, ballistic evidence is not mandatory if there is strong direct evidence, such as credible eyewitness testimony. The court will consider all the evidence available.

Q: What does “common intention” mean under Section 34 of the IPC?

A: Common intention refers to a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds to commit a crime. It can be formed suddenly and does not require a long-standing plan.

Q: How can exhortation lead to conviction under Section 34 of the IPC?

A: Exhortation to commit a crime, especially when accompanied by presence at the scene and possession of a weapon, can establish common intention, making the person liable for the crime.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for future cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of credible eyewitness testimony, even from relatives, and clarifies that ballistic evidence is not always mandatory. It also emphasizes the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the IPC.