Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kali Prasad Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (28 March 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 288

Judges: Arun Mishra J. and Navin Sinha J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, especially when there are claims of inconsistencies in the evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of *Kali Prasad Singh ETC. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh*. The court examined the reliability of the eyewitness account, the timing of the First Information Report (FIR), and other circumstantial evidence to determine if the conviction by the lower courts was justified. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Surendra Singh in Varanasi on February 18, 2000. The complainant, Rajendra Singh, brother of the deceased, stated that he and his brother were walking home when two individuals, Kali Prasad @ Paintol and Santosh Kumar Singh, attacked Surendra. The accused, armed with country-made pistols, shot Surendra, who died on the spot. Rajendra Singh, the sole eyewitness, identified the assailants. The prosecution argued that Ram Narayan was the mastermind behind the murder, conspiring with the accused to eliminate Surendra. The incident occurred around 10 p.m. near Pramod Dubey’s house.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted Kali Prasad and Santosh Kumar Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the sole eyewitness and the timing of the FIR.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code states, “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” The prosecution’s case also involved Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code dealing with criminal conspiracy, though the conviction was only under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case also refers to Section 25 of the Arms Act, under which one of the accused was acquitted.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

• The prosecution story was fabricated, and the eyewitness, Rajendra Singh (PW-1), was not present at the scene.
• PW-1’s testimony was unreliable and lacked corroboration.
• The FIR was ante-timed and registered after deliberations.
• There was doubt about the source of light at the crime scene, making identification unreliable.
• No test identification parade was conducted, which was necessary.
• The absence of blackening marks on the entry wounds indicated that the shots were not fired from close range.
• There was an inimical background between the parties.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The eyewitness’s testimony was credible and consistent.
• The correction in the FIR’s time was made at the time of recording and was explained by PW-4.
• There was sufficient light from Pramod Dubey’s house for identification.
• The version of Constable Nepal Singh (PW-3) corroborated the presence of the complainant at the scene.
• The absence of blackening marks was explained by the deceased wearing a jacket.
• The shots were fired from a short distance, which was corroborated by the medical evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) was ante-timed.
2. Whether the testimony of the solitary eyewitness, Rajendra Singh (PW-1), was reliable.
3. Whether there was a sufficient source of light for identification of the accused.
4. Whether the absence of blackening marks on the deceased’s wounds discredits the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal books in this judgment. However, the court did consider the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines criminal conspiracy.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for illegal possession of arms.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to convict the accused of murder.
• The Court noted that Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was mentioned in the FIR, but the conviction was not under this section.
• The Court acknowledged that one of the accused was acquitted of charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the timing of the FIR, and the corroborative evidence. The court emphasized that a solitary eyewitness testimony can be the basis of conviction if it is credible and consistent. The court also gave importance to the fact that the FIR was not ante-timed, and the minor discrepancies were explained. The court also found the medical evidence consistent with the eyewitness account.

The Court reasoned that the eyewitness account was credible and consistent, the FIR was not ante-timed, and the minor discrepancies were adequately explained. The medical evidence also supported the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that the absence of blackening marks on the skin was explained by the fact that the deceased was wearing a hooded jacket. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“We find that his version is quite truthful. He has clearly stated that one week before the incident he had come from Allahabad to Varanasi.”

“The time of 2305 is also supported by general diary entry. Thus, it appears that correction had been made at the time of reducing the FIR to writing at the relevant time and no dent is caused to the prosecution cast as to the time of incident.”

“Thus, we find that the prosecution has proved case beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court and trial Court have rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302, IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the testimony is credible and consistent.
• Minor discrepancies in the FIR can be overlooked if they are adequately explained.
• Medical evidence can corroborate eyewitness testimony.
• Circumstantial evidence must be considered in totality.

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 conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the testimony is credible and consistent, and minor discrepancies can be overlooked if they are explained. This case reaffirms the principle that the testimony of a single eyewitness can be sufficient for conviction if it is reliable and corroborated by other evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The court found the eyewitness testimony credible, the FIR not ante-timed, and the discrepancies explained. The judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.