Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Prabhu Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan (2018)

Date of the Judgment: July 4, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 609

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can minor inconsistencies in witness testimony undermine a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Prabhu Dayal vs. The State of Rajasthan. This case involves a challenge to a High Court’s decision affirming the conviction of an individual for murder, focusing on whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient despite minor discrepancies and improvements in witness statements. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on the night of May 1, 1997, and the early hours of May 2, 1997, in village Ikran, where Gopal was fatally shot and his wife, Devi, was injured. The prosecution’s case was that Prabhu Dayal, along with other accused, attacked Gopal and Devi. The initial information was lodged by Vikram Singh, Gopal’s brother, who stated that he heard a gunshot and saw Prabhu, Indal, Rajveer, Gyan, and Shiv Singh near Gopal’s cot. According to Vikram, Prabhu had fired at Gopal, and then instructed Shiv Singh to shoot Devi. The accused were allegedly armed with weapons, including kattas (country-made pistols) and a farsa (axe).

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Gyan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Shiv Singh under Section 307 of the IPC, and Indal, Rajveer, and Prabhu Dayal under Sections 302/149 of the IPC. During the appeal before the High Court, Indal passed away. The High Court upheld the convictions of Gyan Singh, Shiv Singh, and Prabhu Dayal, but acquitted Rajveer. Gyan Singh completed his sentence and did not appeal, and Shiv Singh also did not appeal. Prabhu Dayal then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction.

Legal Framework

The relevant legal provisions in this case include:

• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the concept of constructive liability, stating 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 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the use of statements made to the police during the investigation.
• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines an unlawful assembly.

These provisions are central to determining the culpability of the accused and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish their guilt.

Arguments

The appellant, Prabhu Dayal, argued that:

• The names of the accused were not disclosed by the witnesses when they initially went to the police station at 2:00 a.m., suggesting they were not actual eyewitnesses.
• The prosecution’s story changed over time: initially, the FIR stated that Prabhu alone fired at Gopal; later, witnesses claimed both Prabhu and Gyan fired; and at times, only Gyan was said to have fired.
• The post-mortem report indicated only one entry and exit wound, suggesting only one shot was fired, contradicting the claim that two people fired at the deceased.
• The FIR (Exhibit P14) was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), as the initial information given at 2:00 a.m. was not a detailed report and should be considered the first information.
• The place of occurrence was not proven, as no bloodstains were seized from the scene, and the area was washed before the police arrived.

The State of Rajasthan argued that:

• The witnesses’ priority was to take the injured to the hospital, hence the initial report at 2:00 a.m. was brief. The detailed FIR (Exhibit P14) was lodged after ensuring the injured received medical attention.
• The witnesses, being close relatives of the deceased, were credible.
• The presence of all accused at the scene, armed with weapons, was established.
• The appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering Gopal.
• Minor discrepancies in witness statements are common and do not invalidate the entire testimony.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the first information report (Exhibit P14) was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
2. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable despite minor inconsistencies and improvements.
3. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court used Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal, (2003) 1 SCC 648* to support that an FIR need not be exhaustive.
• The Court used Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 208* to emphasize that an FIR is not an encyclopedia.
• The Court used State of M.P. v. Dhirendra Kumar, (1997) 1 SCC 93* to highlight that omissions in the FIR do not necessarily invalidate witness testimony.
• The Court used Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1* to reiterate that an FIR is not expected to contain all details.
• The Court used State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505* to emphasize that minor discrepancies do not merit rejection of evidence.
• The Court used State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686* to highlight that witnesses often add embroidery to the prosecution story, but the core facts should not be rejected.
• The Court used Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525* to support the view that the court can sift the truth from the testimony of witnesses.
• The Court used Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381* to support the view that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India.
• The Court used Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202* to explain that any member of an unlawful assembly can be prosecuted for a criminal act.
• The Court used Lalji v. State of U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437* to explain the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
• The Court used Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P., (1995) 4 SCC 430* as a case that followed the principles laid down in Masalti v. State of U.P. and Lalji v. State of U.P..
• The Court used State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507* to support the view that the failure to determine the origin of blood does not necessarily prove fatal to the prosecution’s case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the following key points:

• The consistent presence of the appellant and other accused at the scene of the crime, armed with weapons.
• The fact that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering Gopal.
• The testimonies of the witnesses, which, despite minor inconsistencies, corroborated the main facts of the incident.
• The forensic evidence, which confirmed the use of firearms and the presence of human blood at the scene.
• The principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC, which holds all members of an unlawful assembly responsible for the acts of the group.

The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements are common and do not invalidate the entire testimony if the core facts remain consistent. The Court also noted that the witnesses’ priority was to save the lives of the injured, which explains the brief initial report at 2:00 a.m. The Court also stressed that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply in India.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Prabhu Dayal, stating that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish his guilt. The Court found that:

• The FIR (Exhibit P14) was not hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The minor inconsistencies in the witness testimonies did not undermine their credibility.
• The appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, making him liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Court also observed that “A FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the case” and that “the witnesses are rustic and can develop a tendency to exaggerate.” The Court also stated that “It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses.”

The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant.

Key Takeaways

• Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not necessarily invalidate the entire testimony if the core facts remain consistent.
• The principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) holds all members of an unlawful assembly responsible for the acts of the group.
• The initial information given to the police need not be an exhaustive account of the incident.
• The priority of witnesses in a criminal incident is to save lives and provide medical assistance to the injured.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the entire testimony if the core facts remain consistent. This case also reinforces the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), where all members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the acts of the group. The Court reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopedia and need not contain all details of the prosecution case. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Prabhu Dayal, emphasizing that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Court reaffirmed the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and highlighted that an FIR is not expected to be an exhaustive account of the incident. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the overall context and circumstances while evaluating evidence in criminal cases.