Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 79

Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a critical question in criminal law: When can a conviction for murder be upheld despite discrepancies in evidence and a claim of alibi? This judgment in the case of Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand delves into the intricacies of evidence evaluation, the burden of proof, and the significance of medical and ocular evidence in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment, with Justice Kaul authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On March 7, 2000, at approximately 1:00 PM, Vikas Kumar Singh was attacked while walking towards Bhandar for exercise. According to the prosecution, six individuals, including Pappu Tiwari and Law Tiwari, ambushed him. Pappu Tiwari allegedly shot Vikas, causing him to fall, after which the other accused inflicted multiple knife wounds. The incident was reported by Vikas’s brother, Pankaj Kumar Singh, who filed a complaint (fardbeyan) at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, at 2:00 PM. Following the complaint, FIR Garhwa P.S. Case No. 33 of 2000 was registered under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The accused allegedly fled in a Maruti Van belonging to Pintu Tiwari.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all six accused persons, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Pappu Tiwari received an additional three-year sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the trial court’s decision, except for Pintu Tiwari, who was found to be a minor and was released. Sanjay Ram and Uday Pal accepted the High Court’s judgment. Pappu Tiwari initially failed to surrender, leading to the dismissal of his Special Leave Petition (SLP). Law Tiwari and Ajay Pal jointly filed an SLP, which was dismissed for Ajay Pal, but leave was granted for Law Tiwari. Pappu Tiwari was later apprehended and his SLP was restored after a review petition.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 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 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a 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.”
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section specifies the punishment for using arms in contravention of the Act. It states, “Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 or section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Law Tiwari):

• Plea of Alibi: Law Tiwari argued that he could not have participated in the crime because he had a fractured leg on the day of the incident. He presented evidence of an x-ray taken on January 24, 2000, and testimony from witnesses who claimed he was injured and receiving treatment.
  • Sub-argument: The trial court did not properly consider the alibi.
  • Sub-argument: The appellate court did not discuss the alibi in detail.

Arguments of the Appellant (Pappu Tiwari):

• Reasonable Doubt: Pappu Tiwari contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Sub-argument: There were contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses.
  • Sub-argument: One of the eye witnesses was a chance witness.
  • Sub-argument: The FIR was ante-timed.
  • Sub-argument: There were discrepancies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report.
  • Sub-argument: There were discrepancies between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence.
  • Sub-argument: The investigation was defective.
  • Sub-argument: There was an absence of independent witnesses.
  • Sub-argument: The High Court erroneously considered the antecedents of the appellant.

Arguments of the State:

• Consistent Testimony: The State argued that the testimonies of the eye witnesses were broadly consistent and reliable.
  • Sub-argument: The fardbeyan was recorded expeditiously.
  • Sub-argument: The FIR was registered promptly.
  • Sub-argument: The inquest report is not substantive evidence.
  • Sub-argument: The post-mortem report is the expert evidence.
• Failure to Prove Alibi: The State contended that Law Tiwari failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his plea of alibi.
  • Sub-argument: Neither the x-ray nor the doctor’s advise was produced.
  • Sub-argument: The doctor was not produced as a witness.
  • Sub-argument: No hospital records were produced.
• No Major Discrepancies: The State asserted that the minor discrepancies in the evidence did not undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Proper Investigation: The State argued that the investigation was proper and the FIR was not ante-timed.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the two courts below rejecting the plea of alibi of Law Tiwari was required to be interfered with by this Court when the burden lay heavy on the appellant as when such a plea is raised the accused must discharge that burden?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved its case against Pappu Tiwari beyond reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the discrepancies in the evidence are sufficient to cast a doubt on the prosecution’s case?
4. Whether the FIR was ante-timed?
5. Whether the differences between the inquest report and the post-mortem report are fatal to the prosecution’s case?
6. Whether there is a discrepancy between the medical evidence and ocular evidence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities in its judgment:

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 the authorities to support its reasoning.

• Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the heavy burden on the accused to prove alibi.
• Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the plea of alibi must be proved with certainty.
• Sudarshan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different.
• Maula Bux & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting the purpose of the inquest report.
• Suresh Roy v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority on the use of the inquest report.
• Surjan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority to state that the inquest report is not substantive evidence.
• Pedda Narayana & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority on the purpose of inquest proceedings.
• Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority on the scope of inquest report.
• Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority on the limited purpose of an inquest report.
• Prahlad Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority on the medical evidence in firearm cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The failure of the accused to establish the plea of alibi.
• The consistent testimonies of the eye witnesses.
• The prompt registration of the FIR and the sequence of events.
• The fact that the inquest report is not substantive evidence.
• The post-mortem report being the expert evidence.
• The lack of significant discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence.
• The absence of any significant loopholes in the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected alternative interpretations of the evidence, emphasizing the consistent testimonies of the eye witnesses, the prompt registration of the FIR, and the expert nature of the post-mortem report. The Court found no reason to overturn the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, stating that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving alibi lies heavily on the accused, and that minor discrepancies in evidence should not undermine the prosecution’s case when the core facts are consistent. The court also highlighted the importance of the post-mortem report as expert evidence, and the limited scope of an inquest report.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The burden on the accused is rather heavy and he is required to establish the plea of alibi with certitude.”
• “The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence…”
• “The objective is to find out whether a person who has died under suspicious circumstances, what may be the apparent cause of his death.”

Key Takeaways

• Burden of Proof: The accused has a heavy burden to prove a plea of alibi with certainty.
• Evidentiary Value: The post-mortem report is considered expert evidence, while the inquest report is not substantive evidence.
• Discrepancies: Minor discrepancies in evidence do not necessarily undermine the prosecution’s case if the core facts are consistent.
• Importance of Timeliness: Prompt registration of the FIR and timely investigation are crucial.
• Ocular Evidence: The testimony of eye witnesses is given credence, provided it is consistent and believable.

This judgment reinforces the importance of credible evidence and the heavy burden on the accused to prove their innocence. It also clarifies the evidentiary value of various documents in criminal trials and highlights the significance of consistent witness testimonies. This case serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation. This judgment is likely to be cited in future cases dealing with similar issues, particularly those involving pleas of alibi, discrepancies in evidence, and the evaluation of medical and ocular evidence. It also underscores the need for the accused to present compelling evidence to support their defense, especially when the prosecution’s case is based on consistent and believable witness testimonies.