Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Netaji Achyut Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra (23 March 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 172

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Netaji Achyut Shinde & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s decision to acquit two of the accused in a murder case, based on the evidence presented and the legal principles involved. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, thereby affirming the conviction of all the accused. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta concurring.

Case Background

On 5th July 2011, at approximately 5:30 PM, Suhas was attacked near Shivaji Chowk in Kallam, Osmanabad. The assailants, including Netaji Achyut Shinde (A-1), Samadhan Shinde (A-2), Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (A-3), and Anant Balasaheb Shinde (absconding), allegedly assaulted Suhas with a sword, fists, and kicks. Suhas succumbed to his injuries at around 7:15 PM in the hospital. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at 11:45 PM by Ramhari Shinde (PW-1), the brother of Suhas’s father. The FIR implicated the three appellants and the absconding accused. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for murder with common intention.

The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts, including that of Balasaheb Kshirsagar (PW-2), Balkrishna Bhawar (PW-3), Shivraj Ritapure (PW-4), and Ravindra Mohanlal Oza (PW-18), along with medical evidence and material objects. The accused claimed they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry and property disputes. The trial court convicted A-2, Samadhan Shinde, but acquitted A-1, Netaji Shinde, and A-3, Balasaheb Shinde. The High Court reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-3, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Samadhan Shinde (A-2) but acquitted Netaji Shinde (A-1) and Balasaheb Shinde (A-3), primarily based on medical evidence that did not directly link the acquitted accused to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The trial court also questioned the reliability of the eyewitnesses, citing their relationship with the deceased’s family.

The High Court, on appeal, reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting Netaji Shinde (A-1) and Balasaheb Shinde (A-3). The High Court emphasized that the trial court had overlooked the consistent eyewitness testimonies and had given undue weight to the medical evidence, which did not negate the presence and actions of the acquitted accused.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder, stating, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Additionally, Section 34 of the IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, is relevant. 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.”

These provisions are fundamental in establishing the culpability of each accused in the murder case, emphasizing that even if the fatal blow was not inflicted by all, their shared intention to commit the crime makes them equally liable.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the initial information received by the police at 5:30 PM should be treated as the First Information Report (FIR), and the later FIR filed at 11:30 PM was an attempt to falsely implicate them. They contended that the eyewitnesses were partisan and unreliable, citing their relationship with the deceased and their failure to report the incident immediately. The appellants also argued that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of their involvement, and the dying declaration was unreliable due to the deceased’s critical condition and the nature of his injuries. They further argued that the recovery of their clothes and the motorcycle was doubtful and not in accordance with the law.

The State argued that the initial telephonic intimation was incomplete and did not constitute an FIR. The state emphasized the consistent eyewitness testimonies, which clearly established the role of the accused in the attack. The state contended that the trial court erred in prioritizing medical evidence over the ocular evidence and that the High Court correctly reversed the acquittal based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence.

The arguments of the appellants can be broken down into the following sub-arguments:

• The initial information received by the police at 5:30 PM should be treated as the First Information Report (FIR).
• The eyewitnesses were partisan and unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased.
• The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of their involvement.
• The dying declaration was unreliable due to the deceased’s critical condition and the nature of his injuries.
• The recovery of their clothes and the motorcycle was doubtful and not in accordance with the law.
• There was no prior concert or meeting of minds between the absconding accused and the present appellants.

The arguments of the State can be broken down into the following sub-arguments:

• The initial telephonic intimation was incomplete and did not constitute an FIR.
• The eyewitness testimonies were consistent and clearly established the role of the accused in the attack.
• The trial court erred in prioritizing medical evidence over the ocular evidence.
• The High Court correctly reversed the acquittal based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence.

The innovativeness of the argument of the appellants was that they tried to use the initial intimation to the police as the FIR and they also tried to create a doubt on the prosecution case by stating that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution version.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the initial intimation received by the police constituted an FIR.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible eyewitness testimonies that clearly implicated the appellants in the crime. The Court emphasized that the trial court had erred in prioritizing medical evidence over the ocular evidence and had overlooked the active role played by the appellants in the attack. The Court also noted that the initial telephonic intimation was incomplete and did not constitute an FIR.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, including the eyewitness accounts, the recovery of material objects, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court also considered the legal principles related to common intention and the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.

The ratio of Fact:Law in this case was 60:40, with 60% of the consideration being based on the factual aspects of the case, and 40% based on legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A mere telephonic message without complete information about the commission of a cognizable offense cannot be treated as an FIR.
• Eyewitness testimonies hold significant weight in criminal cases, and courts should not disregard them based on minor inconsistencies or relationships with the victim.
• Medical evidence should be considered along with other evidence and should not be given undue primacy if it does not negate the presence and actions of the accused.
• The concept of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC implies that all individuals involved in a criminal act are liable, even if they did not directly commit the fatal act.
• Appellate courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence and reverse acquittals if the trial court’s findings are unreasonable or irrational.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that the first information report must contain complete information about the crime. It also clarifies that eyewitness testimonies should be given due weight, and medical evidence should not be given undue primacy if it does not negate the presence and actions of the accused. Further, it reiterates the concept of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, emphasizing that all individuals involved in a criminal act are liable, even if they did not directly commit the fatal act. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of all the accused, emphasizing the importance of consistent eyewitness testimonies and the concept of common intention. The Court found that the High Court was correct in reversing the trial court’s decision, as the trial court had overlooked the eyewitness evidence and given undue weight to the medical evidence.