Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kalua @ Koshal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 76

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be considered credible even if some of the accused are acquitted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal. The court examined whether the High Court of Rajasthan was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder. The bench consisted of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

On 17th September 1999, at around 5:00 PM, Lakhan, an employee of the Municipal Council/Corporation, was inspecting sanitation workers in the main market of Bayana. According to the complaint filed by Prem Shankar (PW-9), Lakhan was surrounded by Susya @ Lokesh (A-4), Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore (A-1), Laddu @ Mool Chand (later acquitted), Dinesh (A-2), Kalua (A-5), Satish (A-3) (later acquitted), and other individuals. Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore (A-1) and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore (A-5) fired shots in the air to create terror. Susya @ Lokesh (A-4) then shot Lakhan with a country-made gun (katta), hitting him on the left side of the abdomen. All the accused then fled the scene. Prem Shankar (PW-9) and other witnesses took the injured Lakhan to the hospital, where he later died. Initially, a case was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but was later altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after Lakhan’s death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore (A-1), Kalua @ Koshal Kishore (A-5), and Susya @ Lokesh (A-4) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Dinesh (A-2), Satish (A-3), and Laddu @ Mool Chand were acquitted. The High Court of Rajasthan affirmed the conviction of the appellants. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the false implication of some of the accused, namely, Dinesh (A-2) and Satish (A-3), raises serious doubts about the complicity of the appellants. They contended that this aspect was not properly considered by the Trial Court or the High Court. They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Balaka Singh and Other v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511 to support their argument.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly recorded concurrent findings of fact that the eyewitnesses, Prem Shankar (PW-9) and Rakesh (PW-12), were natural witnesses to the incident. The State contended that their evidence was credible and consistent, establishing the guilt of the accused.
• The State further argued that the acquittal of some accused does not discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses regarding the involvement of the other accused.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument that the false implication of some accused casts doubt on the entire prosecution case is a common defense strategy, but it highlights the importance of scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses and the investigation process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were justified based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the case of Balaka Singh and Other v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511* but distinguished it from the present case. The Court did not accept the appellants’ argument that the false implication of some accused raises doubts about the complicity of the other accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible testimony of the eyewitnesses, Prem Shankar (PW-9) and Rakesh (PW-12). The court emphasized that the acquittal of some accused does not automatically invalidate the testimony against the others. The court also noted that the non-recovery of the weapon from one of the accused did not significantly affect the prosecution’s case. The court focused on the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the false implication of some accused raises doubts about the complicity of the other accused. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that “…upon analysis of the fact and circumstances of the case obtained, pointed out that grain can easily be separated from the chaff and that lie and truth can be separated easily.” The Court further stated that “merely because Prem Shankar (PW-9) has been convicted in other case, it does not affect his credibility, he being the witness in this occurrence.” The Court also noted that “non-recovery or non-production of weapon would not materially affect the case of the prosecution.” The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of eyewitnesses can be considered credible even if some of the accused are acquitted.
• The non-recovery of a weapon does not always weaken the prosecution’s case if there is other credible evidence.
• Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and High Court are generally upheld by the Supreme Court unless there is a strong reason to interfere.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that since the appellants are stated to be undergoing imprisonment for more than ten years, they are at liberty to approach the competent authority for considering their case for remission. The concerned authority is to take a decision in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the testimony of eyewitnesses can be considered credible even if some of the accused are acquitted, and the non-recovery of a weapon does not always weaken the prosecution’s case. This case reinforces the principle that each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances, and the credibility of witnesses should be assessed based on their testimony and not solely on the outcome of the trial for other accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, emphasizing the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases and the principle that the acquittal of some accused does not automatically discredit the evidence against others.