Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Karulal & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: October 9, 2020
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can the testimony of a witness who is related to the victim be considered credible in a murder trial? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Karulal & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the appellants challenged their conviction for murder, arguing that the eyewitnesses were family members of the deceased and therefore unreliable. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the testimony of related witnesses can be credible if found to be truthful and consistent with other evidence. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On August 18, 1993, Madhavji was in his field when he was attacked by Karulal, Amra, Kachru, Suratram, Lalu, and Bhagirath. Madhavji’s son, Bhawarlal (PW3), witnessed the attack while grazing cattle nearby. He saw the accused assaulting his father with axes, swords, and lathis. Madhavji’s daughter, Shyambai (PW 13), and Babulal (PW12), also arrived at the scene. The accused fled upon seeing them. Bhawarlal arranged a bullock cart to take his injured father to Narayangarh. On the way, some women, Badambai, Munnabai, Ramibai, Sitabai, and Veniram, tried to stop the cart and threatened to kill Bhawarlal. However, they were unsuccessful because other people gathered around. Madhavji died on the way to Narayangarh. Bhawarlal and Babulal then went to the Narayangarh Police Station and lodged a report at 11:55 AM, within four hours of the incident. The police station was approximately 8 kilometers from the scene of the crime.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Karulal, Amra, Kachru, Suratram, and Bhagirath under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The four women charged under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for obstructing and threatening the informant were acquitted. The accused appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.” This section deals with the offense of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.” This section specifies the punishment for committing murder.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” This section states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offense.
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for criminal intimidation.” This section defines and punishes the offense of criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the eyewitnesses, PW3 and PW12, should not be trusted because they are the children of the deceased.
• They claimed that they were falsely implicated due to past enmity with the deceased’s family.
• They pointed out that some witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
• The defense argued that the injuries could have been caused by an accidental fall into a Nullah (a natural stream or watercourse).

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the evidence of the three eyewitnesses (PW3, PW11 and PW12) conclusively supported the prosecution’s case.
• They submitted that the medical evidence corroborated the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
• The prosecution argued that the past enmity between the two groups provided a clear motive for the accused to attack the victim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the testimony of related witnesses can be considered reliable.
2. Whether past enmity is a valid ground to discredit the testimony of witnesses.
3. Whether the testimonies of the witnesses are corroborated by medical evidence.

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

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1953 SC 364]* to establish that related witnesses are not inherently unreliable and their testimony should be evaluated based on its truthfulness and consistency. The Court emphasized that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless they have a reason to implicate the accused falsely.

✓ The Court referred to State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass [(1972) 3 SCC 201]* to support the view that close relatives of a murdered person are often reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person.

✓ The Court cited Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2018) 7 SCC 429]* to reiterate that there is no legal proposition that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. The Court emphasized that a reason must be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to demonstrate that the witnesses had a motive to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.

✓ The Court used Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. [(1995) Supp 1 SCC 363]* to highlight that enmity is a double-edged weapon, which can be a motive for the crime as well as for false implication. The Court emphasized that if the prosecution provides positive evidence showing the direct involvement of the accused, motive assumes importance.

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, which were corroborated by the medical evidence. The court emphasized that related witnesses are not inherently unreliable and that past enmity does not automatically discredit a witness’s testimony. The court also noted that the defense’s argument that the injuries were caused by an accidental fall was not supported by the evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court stated, “The above precedents make it amply clear that the testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were immediately present at the spot and identified the accused with various deadly weapons in their hands.”

The Court also observed, “If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. In fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for the crime.”

Furthermore, the Court noted, “In this case, it is seen that the prosecution version is cogent and supported by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of related witnesses can be considered reliable if found to be truthful and consistent with other evidence.
• Past enmity does not automatically discredit a witness’s testimony and can be a motive for the crime.
• Medical evidence can corroborate eyewitness testimonies, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
• Courts must carefully evaluate all evidence and testimonies to arrive at a just decision.

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 testimony of related witnesses can be the basis of conviction if found to be truthful and consistent with other evidence. This case reinforces the principle that close relatives are often the last to falsely implicate an innocent person and that past enmity does not automatically discredit a witness’s testimony. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellants. The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies were credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court also emphasized that related witnesses are not inherently unreliable and that past enmity does not automatically discredit a witness’s testimony. This judgment reinforces the importance of evaluating all evidence and testimonies carefully to ensure a just outcome.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
• Evidence Law
• Witness Testimony
• Murder
• Criminal Conviction

FAQ

Q: Can a witness who is related to the victim be considered reliable in a criminal case?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that the testimony of a related witness can be considered reliable if it is found to be truthful and consistent with other evidence. The court emphasized that close relatives are often the last to falsely implicate an innocent person.

Q: Does past enmity between the accused and the victim automatically discredit a witness’s testimony?

A: No, past enmity does not automatically discredit a witness’s testimony. The court held that past enmity can also be a motive for the crime and does not make a witness unreliable if their testimony is otherwise trustworthy.

Q: What role does medical evidence play in a criminal case?

A: Medical evidence can play a crucial role in corroborating eyewitness testimonies. In this case, the medical evidence supported the eyewitness accounts, strengthening the prosecution’s case.

Q: What is Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the offense of rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.

Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 specifies the punishment for committing murder.

Q: What is Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offense.