Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Premeditated Attack Case: Joy Dev Araj vs. State of Kerala (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 473

Judges: Dipankar Datta J., Pankaj Mithal J.

Can inconsistencies in witness testimonies undermine a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a premeditated attack. The court examined the credibility of eyewitness accounts and the nature of the crime to determine if the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was justified. This judgment clarifies the standards for evaluating witness testimony and the elements required to establish murder. The bench comprised of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Bobby on the evening of December 26, 1999. The events leading up to the murder began on December 24, 1999, when a dispute arose between Sufras @ Rinku and Bennet Ignatius. Bobby, the victim, was part of an ‘Anti-Liquor Movement’ along with PW5. On December 24, 1999, PW5 had an altercation with A4, an alleged illicit liquor vendor, in which Bobby supported PW5. During the argument, A4 threatened Bobby, which the prosecution contended was the cause of the attack on December 26, 1999. On the day of the incident, Bobby was standing on the street talking to K.R. Rainold Suresh and Jerry Mariyadas, when Renjith T.M. arrived on his scooter and joined the group. Around 7:40 PM, the accused, including the appellant, approached Bobby armed with deadly weapons. Bobby attempted to escape on PW4’s scooter, but the appellant grabbed him, pulled him to the ground, and stabbed him in the lower chest with a dagger. Other accused persons hit the victim with hockey sticks. After the attack, the accused hurled a bomb at the door of PW1’s house. Bobby was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

An FIR was registered at the Kannur City Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation led to a charge-sheet against fifteen accused persons. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 201/2002. The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The co-accused were convicted of lesser crimes. The appellant then appealed to the Kerala High Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction by the Sessions Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 143, IPC: Defines the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, IPC: Defines the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Defines the punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 300, IPC: Defines murder and its distinction from culpable homicide.
• Section 149, IPC: Defines the concept of vicarious liability in unlawful assembly.

Section 300, IPC, is crucial in this case as it distinguishes murder from culpable homicide. It states,

“Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel raised several arguments:

• Unreliable Witnesses: The testimonies of the eyewitnesses were unreliable due to material contradictions and gaps. The role of the appellant was unclear across the three eyewitness accounts.
• Inconsistent Statements: PW1, the first informant, gave inconsistent versions about the weapon used and the appellant’s actions. The FIR mentioned a dagger, while his court testimony mentioned an axe. PW2 stated that a knife was used.
• Hostile Witness: PW4, an eyewitness, turned hostile, raising questions about the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Intention to Cause Death: Even if the appellant attacked the victim with a knife, the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death. A single stab wound on the lower chest was not inherently life-threatening, and thus the conviction under Section 302, IPC, was unsustainable.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court did not warrant interference, as the evidence on record supported the conviction.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was to question the credibility of the witnesses based on minor inconsistencies, and to argue that a single stab wound could not be considered as an intention to cause death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. How far is the evidence of the witnesses credible?
2. Does the nature of the offensive act come within the purview of Section 300 of the IPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court analyzed the submissions and authorities as follows:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rammi v. State of M.P. [ (1999) 8 SCC 649 ]: The Court used this case to emphasize that minor discrepancies do not invalidate a witness’s testimony.
• Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [ 1959 Supp (2) SCR 875 ]: This case was used to establish the standard for contradicting a witness, requiring irreconcilable statements.
• Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court relied on this section to state that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity, and a single reliable witness can be sufficient for conviction.
• Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2006) 11 SCC 444 ]: This case was used to determine the intention to cause death, considering factors like the weapon used, the target area, and premeditation.
• Stalin v. State [ (2020) 9 SCC 524 ]: The Court used this case to support that a single stab wound can be considered murder if the requirements of Section 300, IPC, are fulfilled.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The Court found the eyewitness testimonies to be credible despite minor inconsistencies, emphasizing the consistency in identifying the appellant as the stabber.
• Nature of the Weapon and Injury: The use of a dagger on a vital part of the body, combined with the medical evidence, established the intent to cause death.
• Premeditation: The Court noted that the attack was premeditated, with the accused forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons.
• Application of Section 300, IPC: The Court concluded that the appellant’s actions fell under both clauses (1) and (3) of Section 300, IPC, establishing the act as murder.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the evidence clearly established the appellant’s guilt. The decision was reached based on the cumulative assessment of the evidence and legal principles.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The inconsistencies in the witness statements were minor and did not undermine their credibility.
• The medical evidence supported the eyewitness accounts that the victim died from a stab wound to the chest.
• The appellant’s actions met the criteria for murder under Section 300 of the IPC, as he used a deadly weapon, targeted a vital part of the body, and acted with the intention to cause death.

“When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.”

“If the statement before the police officer — in the sense we have indicated — and the statement in the evidence before the court are so inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other that both of them cannot coexist, it may be said that one contradicts the other.”

“The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury…”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

The key practical implications of this judgment are:

• Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not automatically discredit their evidence if the core of their statements remains consistent.
• A single stab wound can be sufficient to establish murder if the requirements of Section 300 of the IPC are met.
• Premeditated attacks using deadly weapons on vital parts of the body will likely result in convictions for murder.

This judgment reinforces the importance of witness credibility and the elements required to establish murder under Indian law. It may impact future cases by setting a precedent for how courts evaluate witness testimonies and determine the intent to cause death.

Directions

The Supreme Court vacated the bail granted to the appellant on February 13, 2015, and directed him to surrender before the concerned court within three weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not undermine their credibility if the core of their statements remains consistent, and a single stab wound to a vital organ can be sufficient to establish murder under Section 300 of the IPC, provided there is an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient to cause death. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of the appellant, Joy Dev Araj, affirming the Kerala High Court’s decision. The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies were credible, and the appellant’s actions met the criteria for murder under Section 300 of the IPC. The judgment reinforces the legal principles regarding witness credibility and the elements required to establish murder.