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

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 118
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can discrepancies in the inquest report and post-mortem report be grounds for overturning a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand. The court examined appeals against convictions for murder, focusing on the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the timing of the First Information Report (FIR), and the differences between the inquest and post-mortem reports. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, delivered a unanimous judgment upholding the convictions.

Case Background

On March 7, 2000, at approximately 1:00 PM, Vikas Kumar Singh was attacked while on his way to Bhandar for physical exercise. According to the prosecution, six individuals, including Pappu Tiwari and Law Tiwari, ambushed Vikas. Pappu Tiwari allegedly shot Vikas with a pistol, causing him to fall, after which the other accused inflicted multiple knife injuries. Vikas’s younger brother, Pankaj Kumar Singh, witnessed the attack and filed a complaint (fardbeyan) at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, at 2:00 PM. The FIR was registered based on this complaint. The accused allegedly fled in a Maruti Van belonging to Pintu Tiwari.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all six accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment, with Pappu Tiwari receiving an additional three years for the Arms Act violation. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the trial court’s decision, except for Pintu Tiwari, who was found to be a juvenile. The High Court did not pass any further detention orders for Pintu Tiwari, as he had already been in jail for more than three years. Sanjay Ram and Uday Pal accepted the High Court’s judgment. The remaining three, Pappu Tiwari, Law Tiwari, and Ajay Pal, appealed to the Supreme Court. Ajay Pal’s appeal was dismissed, while Law Tiwari’s appeal was admitted. Pappu Tiwari’s initial appeal was dismissed for non-surrender, but was later restored after a review petition.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  “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 relates to the punishment for using arms.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

Arguments by Law Tiwari

• Law Tiwari claimed alibi, stating that he had a fractured leg on the date of the incident and could not have participated in the crime.
• He presented witnesses who testified about his injury and treatment.
• He argued that the trial court and High Court did not properly consider his alibi.

Arguments by Pappu Tiwari

• Pappu Tiwari argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• He pointed out discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies.
• He claimed that the FIR was ante-timed and that there were inconsistencies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report.
• He further argued that the medical evidence did not align with the ocular evidence.
• He also raised concerns about the investigation being defective and the absence of independent witnesses.
• He contended that the High Court erroneously considered his antecedents.

Arguments by the State of Jharkhand

• The State argued that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and reliable.
• It contended that the FIR was recorded promptly and that there was no evidence of it being ante-timed.
• It submitted that the inquest report was not substantive evidence and could not be used to contradict the post-mortem report.
• The State argued that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence.
• It also argued that the plea of alibi by Law Tiwari was not substantiated with proper evidence.

The innovativeness of the arguments lay in the attempt by the appellants to highlight discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, particularly the timing of the FIR, the differences between the inquest and post-mortem reports, and the alleged contradictions in witness testimonies. Law Tiwari’s alibi defense was also a key point of contention.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the plea of alibi raised by Law Tiwari was substantiated with sufficient evidence.
2. Whether the prosecution proved its case against Pappu Tiwari beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged discrepancies in the evidence.
3. Whether the discrepancies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report were fatal to the prosecution’s case.
4. Whether the medical evidence aligned with the ocular evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2015) 4 SCC 749]*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that the burden of proving an alibi lies on the accused, and the evidence must be conclusive.
• Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 6 SCC 204]*: The court used this case to reiterate that the plea of alibi must be proved with certainty to exclude the possibility of the accused’s presence at the scene of the crime.
• Suresh Roy v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 84]*: This case was cited to clarify that the inquest report is not substantive evidence but can be used to contradict the witness of the inquest.
• Surjan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1956 SC 425]*: The court used this case to clarify that the inquest report cannot be pitted against the evidence of the medical witness in court.
• Pedda Narayana & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1975) 4 SCC 153]*: This case was cited to explain that the purpose of proceedings under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. is to ascertain the apparent cause of death and not to delve into the details of the assault.
• Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. [(2017) 11 SCC 195]*: The court relied on this case to reinforce that details of how the deceased was assaulted are not required in the inquest report.
• Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 6 SCC 72]*: The court cited this case to emphasize that the purpose of holding an inquest is limited and the inquest report does not constitute substantive evidence.
• Prahlad Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. [(2011) 15 SCC 136]*: This case was cited to explain that when the weapon and ammunition are of uncertain make, the normal pellet pattern cannot be applied with accuracy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

The court emphasized the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies, noting that there were no major discrepancies that would cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The prompt recording of the FIR and the sequence of events following the incident were also critical factors. The court reiterated that the inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to contradict the post-mortem report. The failure of Law Tiwari to substantiate his plea of alibi with proper evidence was another key factor. The court also found that there was no significant discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence.

The court’s reasoning was as follows:

The court considered arguments that the FIR was ante-timed, but found no merit in this argument, noting the sequence of events and the prompt action by the police. The differences between the inquest report and the post-mortem report were also considered, but the court emphasized that the inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to contradict the post-mortem report. The court also noted that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the legal principles involved. The court’s reasoning was clear and logical, and it addressed all the key issues raised by the appellants.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In our considered opinion, when the trial court as well as the High Court have disbelieved the plea of alibi which is a concurrent finding of fact, there is no warrant to dislodge the same.”
• “The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellants and the appellants have failed to bring on record any such evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their plea of alibi.”
• “The objective is to find out whether a person who has died under suspicious circumstances, what may be the apparent cause of his death.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, delivered a unanimous judgment.

The decision has implications for future cases involving similar issues. It reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimonies, the proper recording of FIRs, and the distinction between the inquest report and the post-mortem report. It also emphasizes the burden on the accused to prove an alibi with certainty.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Eyewitness testimonies are crucial and can be relied upon if they are consistent and credible.
• ✓ The FIR should be recorded promptly, and any delay must be explained.
• ✓ The inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to contradict the post-mortem report.
• ✓ The burden of proving an alibi lies on the accused, and the evidence must be conclusive.
• ✓ Medical evidence should be consistent with ocular evidence, but minor discrepancies may not be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the burden of proving an alibi lies on the accused, and the evidence must be conclusive. The inquest report is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to contradict the post-mortem report. The court also reiterated the importance of eyewitness testimonies and the prompt recording of the FIR. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of both Pappu Tiwari and Law Tiwari, upholding their convictions for murder. The court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the appellants had failed to substantiate their defenses. The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimonies, the proper recording of FIRs, and the distinction between the inquest report and the post-mortem report.