1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on eyewitness testimony. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 356
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Failure of prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant in a murder case.
Failure of prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant in a murder case.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 325/149 – Murder and hurt – Common intention and common object – Conviction and sentence – There is serious doubt whether PWs had really seen appellant assaulting deceased with blunt edge of spade – There was prior enmity between two eyewitnesses and accused – At least three independent eyewitnesses were available whose statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded – Failure of prosecution to examine three independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant – Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction of appellant under impugned judgment and orders set aside and appellant acquitted of charges framed against him. (Paras )
Facts of the case:
Appellant is the original accused no.9. Appellant and the accused no.10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused nos. 1 to 8 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC. Appellant and accused no.10 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Accused no.10 died during pendency of appeal before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Findings of Court:
Order dated 8th February 2021 passed by this Court records that appellant has surrendered. Appellant shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the legal impact of the prosecution's failure to examine available independent witnesses. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Eyewitness testimonies were contradictory in cross-examination and unreliable, while the prosecution failed to examine available independent witnesses despite recording their statements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Adverse inference is drawn when the prosecution fails to examine available independent witnesses if the testimony of examined witnesses does not inspire confidence. (Para 9 )
5. Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted of charges. (Para 10 )
6. When does contradictory testimony in cross-examination affect the credibility of eyewitnesses?
When witnesses contradict their examination-in-chief by admitting they could not identify the assailant during the incident, their testimony fails to inspire confidence and creates serious doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to examine available independent eyewitnesses?
While the non-examination of some witnesses is not always fatal, if the versions of the examined witnesses do not inspire confidence, the failure to examine available independent witnesses leads to an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Para 9 )
8. What is the standard for sustaining a criminal conviction when evidence is unreliable?
A conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable testimony and the resulting adverse inferences. (Para 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant is the original accused no. 9. The appellant and the accused no. 10 - Ram Bachan, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Accused nos. 1 to 8 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellant and the accused no. 10 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The accused no. 10 died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
2. The incident is of 17th August 1984. According to the prosecution’s case, PW-1 Uday Raj Maurya, PW-2 Ram Aadhar (father of PW-1) and Karam Hussain (deceased) were sitting near the doorsteps of the house of PW-1 and PW-2. Their discussion was about irrigating the fields. According to the prosecution’s case, there was previous enmity between PW-1 and PW-2 on the one hand and the accused persons on the other. There was a case filed against the family of the accused no. 1 in which PW-2 was a witness. According to the prosecution’s case, a decree was passed in favour of PW-1 and PW-2 and against accused no. 7 Tufani. Moreover, PW-2 had filed the case against accused no. 3 and accused no. 4. While PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased were discussing the issue of irrigating their fields, the accused persons came there carrying bricks and bamboo sticks. The appellant was carrying a spade. At that time, accused nos.4 and 6 shouted that PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased should be killed so that the case gets finished. On hearing this, PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased ran towards the northern side of the house of PW-1. The accused persons chased and surrounded them. The appellant attacked the deceased on his head with the blunt edge of the spade. He also attacked PW-2 by using the same weapon. After the deceased fell down, the accused continued to assault the said three persons with bamboo sticks. Karam Hussain, the deceased, succumbed to the injuries sustained due to the assault made by the appellant and the accused no. 10. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of which, PW-1 and PW-2 were the eyewitnesses. The Sessions Court believed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and convicted the accused. In the appeal before the High Court, the conviction of the appellant was confirmed. However, accused nos. 1 and 2, who were the only other surviving accused, were acquitted.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that both PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in the cross-examination that they had not seen which accused assaulted the deceased. Moreover, three eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the incident were not examined. He, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
4. The learned senior counsel representing the respondent – State of Uttar Pradesh pointed out that both PW-1 and PW-2 have clearly stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his head with the blunt edge of the spade. He submitted that the medical evidence supports the version of PW-1 and PW-2 as far as the assault by the appellant on the deceased is concerned. He submitted that both the Courts have believed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as far as the assault on the deceased is concerned and that there was no perversity in the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and the High Court. He submitted that no interference be made with the conviction of the appellant.
OUR VIEW
5. We have perused the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. We may note here that the High Court has disbelieved their versions to the extent to which they deposed about the injuries received by them in the incident at the hands of the accused. In fact, there is a specific finding that the version of PW-1 and PW-2 about the assault on them does not inspire confidence.
6. It is true that both PW-1 and PW-2, in their examination-in-chief, have stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his head w
