Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot vs. State of Gujarat (28 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2021

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can minor discrepancies in witness testimonies undermine a murder conviction when supported by medical evidence and other corroborating facts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, upholding the conviction of three individuals in a case involving a fatal attack. This judgment underscores the importance of evaluating the overall evidence and the credibility of witnesses, even when minor contradictions exist. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, who delivered a unanimous opinion.

Case Background

On November 10, 2006, Rajshibhai Maldebhai Karangiya, along with Mitesh Hardasbhai and Gokalbhai Karsanbhai, were traveling on a motorcycle in Keshod, Gujarat. While returning, they were attacked by Vajashibhai Ramshibhai Kachhot, Mulubhai Markhibhai Nandaniya, and Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot. The accused were armed with an axe and knives. Mulubhai struck Gokalbhai on the head with an axe, causing all three to fall off the motorcycle. The accused then attacked Gokalbhai with knives, resulting in his death. Rajshibhai and Mitesh also sustained injuries when they intervened. The incident was reportedly a consequence of a prior dispute between the accused and the deceased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The First Class Magistrate, Keshod, committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, as the offenses were triable by the Sessions Court. In Sessions Case No. 14 of 2007, all three accused were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Accused No. 1 was also convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and fines.

Accused Nos. 1 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2010, and Accused No. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2010 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The High Court partly allowed the appeals, confirming the conviction but ordering that all sentences run concurrently and extending the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 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 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
  “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 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
  “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act: This section deals with the penalty for contravention of rules or orders.
  “Whoever contravenes any rule or order made under this Act, or any provision of this Act for which no other penalty is provided, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The conviction was primarily based on the testimonies of PW-18 and PW-19, who were injured eyewitnesses. The appellants argued that these testimonies contained major contradictions and were unreliable.
• The appellants contended that the postmortem report did not mention the nature of injuries as stated by the witnesses, particularly regarding a head injury, and that the motorcycle used in the crime was not recovered.
• It was argued that there were no blood marks on PWs-18 and 19, who were said to be injured, and no blood traces in the Maruti car used to transport the injured.
• The appellants submitted that the incident occurred in the dark, making identification of the accused difficult, and that the motive was not strong enough to prove guilt.

Arguments by the Respondent-State:

• The State argued that there were concurrent findings of conviction by the trial court and the High Court, based on a thorough examination of the evidence.
• The prosecution contended that the accused were identified by the witnesses, who were from the same village and knew each other.
• The State submitted that the medical and ocular evidence supported the prosecution’s case, proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• The State argued that any discrepancies in the depositions were minor and did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case.

The innovativeness of the arguments by the appellants was in questioning the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies due to contradictions and lack of corroboration with medical evidence, while the State relied on the concurrent findings and the overall credibility of the witnesses.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court in recording the conviction of the accused is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.

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:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and judgments of the lower courts, found no merit in the appeals. The Court upheld the conviction of all three accused.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court distinguished the cases of Anand Ramachandra Chougule etc. v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala & Ors. [(2019) 8 SCC 50], Akula Veera Venkata Surya Prakash @ Babi v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(2009) 15 SCC 246], and Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 311], stating that they did not assist the appellants’ case, given the facts and evidence of the present case.
• The Court relied on Mohar & Anr. v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606], emphasizing that convincing evidence is needed to discredit an injured witness.
• The Court also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 324], stating that the evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside without cogent reasons.
• The Court further relied on Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457], which held that only contradictions in material particulars can be a ground to discredit the testimony of witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and trustworthy testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses, PW-18 and PW-19. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in their statements did not undermine their credibility, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence. The Court also took into account the fact that the accused and the witnesses were known to each other, making identification easier. The presence of a motive, stemming from a prior dispute, further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The “Fact:Law” ratio indicates that the court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case (60%), such as the eyewitness testimonies and the sequence of events, compared to the legal considerations (40%), which involved the interpretation of relevant laws and precedents.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of injured eyewitnesses holds significant weight and cannot be easily dismissed unless there are major contradictions or inconsistencies.
• Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the witness if the core of their testimony is consistent and reliable.
• Medical evidence, when corroborative, strengthens the prosecution’s case, even if there are minor variations in the description of injuries by witnesses.
• The identification of the accused is considered reliable when the witnesses and accused are known to each other and from the same village.
• The existence of a motive, even if it is not the sole basis for conviction, adds strength to 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 the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, based on the testimonies of injured witnesses and supported by medical evidence, should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless there are significant errors in the appreciation of evidence. The judgment reinforces the legal principle that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessarily undermine their credibility, especially when corroborated by other evidence. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the three accused for murder. The Court emphasized the importance of the testimonies of injured witnesses, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, and reiterated that minor discrepancies do not invalidate credible testimonies. This judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of lower courts should not be disturbed unless there are significant errors in the appreciation of evidence.