Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Rohtas & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: November 5, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1137

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can inconsistencies in witness statements and the acquittal of some accused undermine a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where two individuals were convicted for murder, while others involved in the same incident were acquitted. This judgment delves into the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the principle of separating truth from falsehood in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the concurrent findings of guilt against Rohtas and Surender Singh for the murder of Mohar Pal. The judgment explores the extent to which the court can rely on eyewitness accounts when some discrepancies exist and some co-accused are acquitted. The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, with the majority opinion authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on April 25, 1998, in Palwal, Haryana. A quarrel occurred between two groups at around 6:30 PM, resulting in injuries to Ved Prakash and Anil Kumar. They were taken to the Government Hospital, Palwal, for treatment by Bishan Singh (PW-1), Rati Chand, and Baljit Singh (PW-2).

Later, at about 8:30 PM, while they were at the hospital gate, Mohar Pal arrived on a motorcycle. He was asked to get money from a commission agent at Anaj Mandi. As Mohar Pal was leaving, the six accused persons, including Rohtas and Surender Singh, stopped his motorcycle. Rohtas and Surender then inflicted knife blows on Mohar Pal. Following this, other accused also assaulted Mohar Pal, who later died from his injuries at the hospital.

Bishan Singh (PW-1) reported the incident to the police, leading to the registration of FIR No. 298 on April 26, 1998. The police investigation followed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, six accused were tried for offenses under Sections 148, 302, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad, convicted Rohtas, Surender Singh, Roop Chand, and Dev Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine. Rajender and Billu were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Rohtas, Surender Singh, Roop Chand, and Dev Kumar appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court upheld the conviction of Rohtas and Surender Singh but acquitted Roop Chand and Dev Kumar, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Rohtas and Surender Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their conviction. The State and the complainant did not challenge the acquittal of the other accused.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• 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 common intention. It reads, “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 part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the main criminal code of India. Section 302 specifies the punishment for murder, while Section 34 establishes the principle of joint criminal liability, where multiple individuals can be held liable for a crime if they acted with a common intention.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that both the Trial Court and the High Court had misread and misappreciated the evidence.
• They claimed that the testimonies of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) were unreliable and an attempt to falsely implicate them.
• The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, pointing out several deficiencies in the investigation:
  • No seizure list of the deceased’s clothes was made.
  • The blood group of the deceased was not ascertained.
  • The alleged knife was not produced or exhibited in court.
  • There were discrepancies in the seizure of the shirt and kurta.
  • The kurta did not have cut signs.
  • No independent witnesses were examined.
  • The sketch plan did not show the blood trail.
  • Key witnesses, such as Anil and Ved Prakash, were withheld.
  • No eyewitnesses from the earlier village incident were examined.
  • The prosecution withheld the MLR of the deceased.
  • The sketch plan did not show the motorcycle or the location of witnesses.
  • The FIR appeared to be concocted and recorded after consultations.
  • There was a variance between the FIR and the IO’s report.
  • The motorcycle was not seized.
• The appellants contended that they deserved the same benefit of doubt as given to the other accused persons.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly distinguished the case of the appellants, Rohtas and Surender Singh.
• The prosecution witnesses had clearly named the appellants, and there was clinching evidence to establish their guilt.
• There were no significant deficiencies in the investigation or the evidence produced.
• The accused took contradictory pleas, first claiming Mohar Pal was injured in an earlier fight and then claiming he was injured elsewhere.
• The acquittal of co-accused did not warrant the same relief for the appellants, as there was sufficient evidence against them.
• The evidence of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) was reliable and could not be undermined.
• The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not generally applicable in India.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court committed a manifest error in appreciating the evidence on record.
2. Whether the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court against the appellants, Rohtas and Surender Singh, were justified.
3. Whether the appellants deserved to be acquitted, or given the benefit of doubt, similar to that given to the other co-accused.

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 while deciding the case:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to reiterate the principles of law. For instance, the court cited Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration [1975] 4 SCC 649* to emphasize that the Supreme Court would not re-appreciate evidence unless there was a manifest error. The court also distinguished the case from State of U.P. vs. Moti Ram & Ors. [1990] 4 SCC 389*, stating that the present case had stronger evidence. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was discussed in light of Rizan & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2003] 2 SCC 661*, where it was held that the maxim has no general applicability in India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony: The Court placed significant weight on the testimonies of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2), who were present at the scene and clearly identified the appellants as the initial assailants. The court found no reason to doubt their credibility, despite them being related to the deceased.
• Corroborative Evidence: The medical evidence, including the post-mortem report, and the recovery of blood-stained soil from the crime scene corroborated the eyewitness accounts.
• Distinct Roles of Accused: The Court emphasized that the roles of the appellants were distinct from those of the acquitted co-accused. The appellants initiated the assault by inflicting knife blows on Mohar Pal, which was a separate event from the subsequent assaults.
• Rejection of Defense Pleas: The Court rejected the contradictory pleas of the defense, which first claimed that Mohar Pal was injured in an earlier incident and then claimed he was injured elsewhere. The lack of evidence to support these claims further weakened the defense’s case.
• Principle of Separating Truth from Falsehood: The Court reiterated that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. The court is expected to separate the truth from the falsehood and accept the reliable parts of the evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, than by legal interpretations. The factual analysis accounted for 60% of the court’s reasoning, while legal considerations made up the remaining 40%.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Reliability of Eyewitnesses: The judgment reinforces that the testimony of eyewitnesses is crucial in criminal cases, especially when it is consistent and credible. The fact that witnesses are related to the victim does not automatically invalidate their testimony.
• Importance of Corroborative Evidence: Medical evidence and scene recovery play a vital role in corroborating eyewitness accounts, adding strength to the prosecution’s case.
• Distinct Roles of Accused: The court emphasized that the roles of each accused must be considered separately. The acquittal of some accused does not automatically lead to the acquittal of others if there is sufficient evidence against them.
• Rejection of Contradictory Defenses: Courts will not accept contradictory defense pleas that are not supported by evidence.
• Application of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus: The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not generally applicable in India. Courts are expected to separate truth from falsehood and accept reliable parts of the evidence.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Rohtas and Surender Singh, upholding their conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found no manifest error in the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine.