Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Triple Murder Case: Indrapal Singh vs. State of U.P. (21 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 630

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., B.R. Gavai J., and B.V. Nagarathna J.

Can inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and the absence of a clearly defined role for one accused lead to the acquittal of all accused in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the brutal murder of three individuals. The Court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was correct in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the evidence presented. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice Nagarathna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Atar Singh, Shivpal Singh, and Keshbhan Singh on October 22, 1995, at around 11:00 a.m. The victims were irrigating their field when they were attacked by the accused. The complainant, Yashwant Singh, brother of Atar Singh, reported that Raj Bahadur Singh, Inder Pal Singh, Surender Pal Singh, and Ram Pal Singh alias Raja Beta came to their field armed with guns. Raj Bahadur Singh allegedly instigated the attack, after which Inder Pal Singh fired at Atar Singh and Shivpal Singh, killing them instantly. Keshbhan Singh was then shot by Ram Pal Singh as he ran towards the field. The complainant and other witnesses present were threatened with gunshots and the accused left, stating they had settled their personal and electoral enmity.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Atar Singh, Shivpal Singh, and Keshbhan Singh. The accused appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed their appeals and confirmed the trial court’s judgment. The accused, except Raj Bahadur Singh, then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

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, stating, “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, stating, “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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the post-mortem reports did not have the FIR number, suggesting that the FIR was not registered until after the post-mortem.
• They contended that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) and that the complainant (PW1) had made improvements in the prosecution’s case.
• The appellants relied on the judgments in Parvat Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 4 SCC 33], Chet Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2014) 13 SCC 105], and Suresh & Anr. vs. State of UP [(2001) 3 SCC 673], to argue that the evidence was not consistent and that they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
• It was argued that in the case of Chetram, no role was assigned to the Accused No.2 Chetram in the attack made on Udairaj during the occurrence in the complaint.
• It was contended that, similar to the Suresh case, the prosecution had failed to establish a prearranged plan or common intention to attract Section 34 of the IPC.
• Specifically, for Surender Pal Singh, it was argued that no overt act was attributed to him in the complaint.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the case was filed under both Section 302 and Section 34 of the IPC.
• They emphasized that the accused were carrying weapons, indicating a common intention to commit the offenses.
• The respondent contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was consistent and that there were no material contradictions or improvements in the prosecution’s case.
• The respondent pointed out that the FIR number was found on the post-mortem reports in the original record.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and reliable.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the common intention of the accused.
4. Whether the case of Surender Pal Singh could be considered separately due to the lack of an overt act attributed to him in the complaint.

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 distinguished Parvat Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 4 SCC 33], Chet Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2014) 13 SCC 105], and Suresh & Anr. vs. State of UP [(2001) 3 SCC 673], stating that the facts of the present case were different.
• The Court cited Barendra Kumar Ghose AIR 1925 PC1, Mahbub Shah vs. Emperor AIR 1945 PC118 and Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1955 SCC 216) on the aspect of common intention.
• The Court considered Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to the charges against the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent and reliable testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), the fact that the accused went to the scene of the crime together with firearms, and the lack of a plausible defense. The Court emphasized the common intention of the accused, as evidenced by their actions and the fact that they were carrying weapons.

The Court found that the evidence on record clearly pointed to the fact that Section 34 of the IPC was rightly invoked along with Section 302. The Court noted that there was no contra evidence on behalf of the defence to explain why they all went together to the spot with fire-arms and shot at the deceased. The antecedent enmity between the accused and the victims, as narrated by PW-1, also contributed to the Court’s conclusion.

“The deposition of PW1 and PW2 in our view is consistent and coherent. They have withstood the cross-examination of the defence and we do not find anything contrary or incriminating which has been elicited against the case of the prosecution.”

“In fact, a cumulative reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 along with other material evidence on record would clearly point to the fact that Section 34 of the IPC was rightly invoked along with Section 302 vis-a-vis the accused.”

“The evidence on record, particularly, the ocular testimony of PW1 and PW2 made it clear that the three victims sustained injuries on account of the use of the fire arms against them which was on the exhortation of the fourth accused Rajbahadur Singh.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces the importance of consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.
• It highlights that when multiple individuals go to the scene of a crime together with weapons, it can be inferred that they had a common intention to commit the crime.
• The judgment clarifies that even if no overt act is attributed to one accused in the complaint, their participation can be established through the testimonies of witnesses.
• The decision underscores that the absence of a plausible defense can strengthen the prosecution’s case.
• This case serves as a reminder that antecedent enmity between the accused and the victims can be a factor in establishing guilt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed:

• Ram Pal Singh to surrender before the concerned jail authority to serve the remainder of his sentence. His bail bond was cancelled.
• Inder Pal Singh, who was granted remission by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, need not surrender before the concerned jail authority, and his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
• The application for exemption from surrendering on behalf of Surender Pal Singh was rejected by the Court on 07.01.2019.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the presence of consistent eyewitness testimony, coupled with the fact that multiple accused persons went to the scene of the crime with weapons, can establish a common intention to commit the crime under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment also clarifies that the absence of a specific overt act attributed to one of the accused in the initial complaint does not absolve them of liability if evidence suggests their involvement. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of the appellants. The Court found that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and reliable, and that the accused had a common intention to commit the crime. The Court also held that there was sufficient evidence to implicate all the accused, including Surender Pal Singh, despite no specific overt act being attributed to him in the original complaint. This judgment reinforces the application of Section 34 of the IPC in cases where multiple individuals act in furtherance of a common intention to commit a crime.