Date of the Judgment: March 05, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 323
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Did the High Court correctly uphold the conviction of the accused in a murder case where the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs. State of Maharashtra, concerning a violent assault resulting in death. The court examined the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the accused’s defense of alibi. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on July 18, 2001, at approximately 10:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The complainant, Dadarao (PW-1), is the son of Tarabai (PW-5), and the deceased, Murlidhar, was Dadarao’s uncle. The accused, including Tanaji Shamrao Kale (Accused No. 9), Ratu, Satu, and Maruti, were charged with offenses under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution’s case was that a dispute arose between the family of PW-1 and the family of the accused regarding the use of a water pipeline for irrigation. This dispute led to strained relations and eventually culminated in the violent assault on Murlidhar.
According to the prosecution, PW-5 was fetching water when she witnessed the accused assaulting Murlidhar with swords. She raised an alarm, prompting PW-1 to rush to the scene, where he also witnessed the assault. Bajrang (PW-2), a cattle grazer, also saw the incident. Accused No. 8, Shamrao, was allegedly present, instigating the attack. Accused No. 9, Tanaji, a police constable, arrived later and allegedly joined the assault by using a sword on the deceased.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 18, 2001 (10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.) | Incident occurred: Murlidhar assaulted. |
| July 18-19, 2001 | Accused No. 9, Tanaji, assigned important duty (according to prosecution). |
| May 10, 2011 | Accused No. 9, Tanaji, granted bail by the Supreme Court. |
| March 19, 2013 | Bail plea of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5 rejected by the Supreme Court. |
| April 11, 2014 | Bail plea of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5 again rejected by the Supreme Court. |
| September 24, 2010 | High Court confirmed the conviction. |
| March 05, 2025 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeals and upholds the conviction. |
Legal Framework
The legal framework primarily involves the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically:
- Section 148, IPC: Pertains to rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 149, IPC: Addresses the concept of common intention in the commission of an offense.
Additionally, Section 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are relevant concerning the recording of statements by the police and their admissibility as evidence.
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with the examination of witnesses by the police. Section 162 of CrPC says about “Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence.”
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- The defense argued that the prosecution failed to examine other potential eyewitnesses, casting doubt on the credibility of the presented evidence.
- It was contended that PW-1’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding his school attendance on the day of the incident. The senior counsel argued that it was difficult to believe that PW-1 had seen the incident between 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. as he claimed to have attended school from 7.30 a.m.
- The defense highlighted an omission in PW-2’s statement, where he did not initially mention accused no. 9 assaulting with a sword.
- The defense pointed out that PW-5 did not ascribe any role to the appellant, Tanaji.
- Evidence from PW-10, Vasant Zunjare, indicated that accused no. 9, Tanaji, was on duty with the crime branch at the time of the incident, suggesting an alibi.
Arguments by the Respondent (State of Maharashtra):
- The prosecution argued that PW-5 did not mention the presence of accused no. 9, Tanaji, because she had already left the scene before he arrived.
- The prosecution maintained that the roles ascribed to the accused, including the appellants, by PW-1 and PW-2 were consistent and credible.
- The prosecution argued that while PW-10’s evidence indicated that accused no. 9 had an assigned duty, he was not present at the police station on those days, thus not establishing a valid alibi.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. | Upheld the conviction. | The Supreme Court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5) to be reliable and of sterling quality. The Court noted that the minor omissions and contradictions in the witnesses’ statements were not significant enough to discredit their testimonies. Additionally, the Court rejected the alibi plea of Accused No. 9, Tanaji, as he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his presence elsewhere during the incident. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly mention specific cases or legal provisions that were heavily relied upon. However, it implicitly considers the principles related to:
- Eyewitness Testimony: The court assesses the credibility and consistency of eyewitness accounts.
- Alibi Defense: The court evaluates the evidence presented to support the alibi of the accused.
- Omissions and Contradictions in Testimony: The court determines whether the omissions and contradictions are material enough to discredit the witness.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of the accused. The court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be reliable and consistent.
“How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?” in [TABLE]
| Submission by Appellants | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Failure to examine other potential eyewitnesses. | Rejected. The court noted that the evidence of the examined eyewitnesses was of sterling quality, making the failure to examine other witnesses not fatal to the prosecution’s case. |
| Unreliability of PW-1’s testimony due to inconsistencies in school attendance. | Rejected. The court found the omission regarding PW-1’s school attendance not significant enough to amount to a contradiction. |
| Omission in PW-2’s statement regarding accused no. 9 assaulting with a sword. | Noted but not considered significant. The court acknowledged the omission but found the overall testimony credible. |
| PW-5 did not ascribe any role to the appellant, Tanaji. | Explained. The court noted that PW-5 had left the scene before Tanaji arrived, explaining why she did not mention him. |
| Evidence from PW-10 suggesting Tanaji was on duty. | Rejected. The court found that Tanaji did not provide sufficient evidence to prove he was elsewhere when the incident occurred, thus not establishing a valid alibi. |
“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”
•Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): The court considered the submissions made by the witnesses during investigation.
•Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): The court considered the statements to police and use of statements in evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?:
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, which outweighed the minor inconsistencies and omissions pointed out by the defense. The failure of the accused to provide a strong alibi also weighed against them.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony | 40% |
| Consistency in Witness Accounts | 30% |
| Failure to Establish Alibi | 20% |
| Minor Inconsistencies and Omissions | 10% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) | 70% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
For the issue of whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction, here’s the logical reasoning:
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Eyewitness testimony, if consistent and credible, can be a strong basis for conviction.
- ✓ Minor omissions or contradictions in witness statements may not be sufficient to discredit their testimony.
- ✓ The burden of proving an alibi lies with the accused, and sufficient evidence must be presented to support the claim.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case reinforces the importance of credible eyewitness testimony in criminal trials and clarifies the standard for evaluating alibi defenses. There is no significant change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the failure of the accused to provide a credible alibi. The judgment underscores the importance of consistent and trustworthy witness testimony in criminal proceedings.