Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony: Shahaja vs. State of Maharashtra (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 July 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 645

Judges: Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, especially when there are minor inconsistencies in their statements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra. This case examines the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the legal implications of evidence discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of the overall truthfulness of the witnesses’ accounts despite minor discrepancies. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with the opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Mahankal Jaiswal, who, along with the appellant, Shahaja, worked as laborers in Mumbai. They were known to each other and often slept near the Vile Parle Railway Station. On December 10, 2006, at around 10:30 PM, a quarrel broke out between Mahankal and Shahaja over money near the railway station’s ticket window. This dispute was witnessed by Nandlal Ramnihor Mishra (PW-1), a priest from a nearby Hanuman Temple. Later, between 12:00 AM and 12:15 AM, while Mahankal was sleeping on the bridge, Nandlal heard a noise. Upon investigation, he saw Shahaja hitting Mahankal on the head with a hammer. Udaysingh Ramsingh Thakur (PW-8), who was sleeping nearby, also witnessed the assault. After the assault, Shahaja walked away with the hammer. Nandlal confronted Shahaja, who admitted to killing Mahankal. The police were informed the next morning, and an investigation was initiated.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, relying on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Nandlal (PW-1) and Udaysingh (PW-8), and the discovery of the hammer at the instance of the appellant, convicted Shahaja under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the trial court’s decision after re-evaluating the evidence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact. It states, “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
• Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the relevancy of conduct. It states, “Any fact which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The trial court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellant of murder.
• The eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-8) are unreliable due to inconsistencies in their testimonies and the circumstances of the incident.
• PW-1’s delay in reporting the incident casts doubt on his credibility.
• The discovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance should not be relied upon as evidence.

State’s Submissions:

• The lower courts correctly held the appellant guilty of murder.
• The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court should not be disturbed.
• The eyewitnesses are credible, and their testimonies are reliable.
• The discovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance further implicates him.
• The panchnama of the discovery of the weapon of offence drawn under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act is an additional circumstance going against the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order?

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 relied on State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer [1958 SCR 580]* to establish that it can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if the High Court acted improperly.
• The Court cited H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash [1972 1 SCC 249]* to emphasize its power to interfere with findings of fact if the High Court acted perversely.
• The Court referred to Balak Ram v. State of U.P. [1975 3 SCC 219]* to reiterate that it does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.
• The Court used Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham [1979 2 SCC 297]* to highlight that the power under Article 136 is used in exceptional cases.
• The Court cited Nain Singh v. State of U.P. [1991 2 SCC 432]* to emphasize that prosecution evidence must meet the test of reliability.
• The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Babul Nath [1994 6 SCC 29]* to state that it does not normally reappraise evidence unless there is an error of law.
• The Court referred to Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [1983 Cri LJ 1096]*, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [AIR 1999 SC 3717]*, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP [AIR 1959 SC 1012]* for principles on appreciating eyewitness evidence.
• The Court used State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [AIR 1988 SC 1998]* to note that minor embellishments by witnesses do not negate their overall truthfulness.
• The Court cited Murli and another v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 9 SCC 417]* to clarify that panchnama contents are not substantive evidence.
• The Court referred to Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State of Maharashtra [AIR (1976) SC 483]* and Kirshnappa vs State Of Karnataka [AIR (1983) SC 446]* to outline the conditions for Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya [AIR (1960) SC 1125]* to explain the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court cited Phulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR (1947) PC 67]* to explain the interpretation of ‘fact discovered’ under Section 27.
• The Court used Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P. [AIR (1981) SC 911]* to state that the discovery of a weapon does not prove the person wielded it.
• The Court referred to A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7 SCC 714]* to highlight the relevance of conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court cited State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [(2005) 11 SCC 600]* to elucidate the scope of Section 8 and Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The consistent and credible testimony of the eyewitnesses, despite minor discrepancies.
• The corroboration of the eyewitness accounts by medical evidence and forensic reports.
• The conduct of the accused in leading to the discovery of the weapon, which was considered relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• The concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which were not found to be perverse or improper.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects included the eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and the conduct of the accused, while the legal aspects involved the interpretation of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the overwhelming evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. The final decision was reached by analyzing the evidence in light of established legal principles and precedents. The court noted that “It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected.” The Court also emphasized that “a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.” Further, the court clarified that “The contents of the panchnama are not the substantive evidence. The law is settled on that issue. What is substantive evidence is what has been stated by the panchas or the person concerned in the witness box.”

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, if found credible, can be a strong basis for conviction, even with minor inconsistencies.
• The conduct of the accused, such as leading to the discovery of a weapon, is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• The discovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, does not, by itself, prove that the person who pointed out the weapon wielded it in the offence.
• The contents of a panchnama are not substantive evidence but can be used to corroborate the panch witness’s testimony.
• The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the lower courts acted perversely or improperly.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless there is a clear error of law or procedure, or if the findings are perverse. The judgment clarifies that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies do not negate their overall credibility if there is a general ring of truth. The court also reiterated that the discovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, does not, by itself, prove that the person who pointed out the weapon wielded it in the offense. Further, the judgment emphasizes that the conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This judgment reaffirms the existing principles of law and provides guidance on the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Shahaja for the murder of Mahankal Jaiswal. The Court found no error in the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies, the corroborative medical evidence, and the conduct of the accused. The judgment underscores the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence and the principle that minor discrepancies do not negate the overall truthfulness of a witness’s account.