Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5384
B.R. GAVAI, J
BALARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2300 OF 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri R. Chandrachud, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Nabab Singh, Mr. Dhuli Venkata Krishna, Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Mr. Dharmendar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. V.V.V. Pattabhiram, Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Mr. Pawan, Ms. Jyoti Verma
The reliability of witness testimony is crucial for conviction; inconsistencies may lead to acquittal even amidst previous enmity claims.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 307 - Murder conviction appeal - Appellant's conviction on the basis of testimonies of witnesses deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies; previous enmity cited as motive was insufficient to establish guilt - Appeal allowed, and order of conviction quashed. (Paras 20, 21)
(B) Witness Reliability - The classification of witnesses into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and partly reliable is critical; only wholly reliable witnesses can support convictions. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a shooting incident leading to the death of Ashok, with the appellant accused of murder alongside others. Their conviction stemmed from contested testimony of witnesses closely connected to the incident.
Findings of Court:
Given significant inconsistencies in testimonies, the court found the witnesses unreliable, leading to the appellant's acquittal and quashing of previous convictions.
Issues: The critical issue addressed concern the reliability of testimony and the evidential basis for the appellant's conviction given the acquittal of others involved in the same incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed the testimonies unreliable, leading to the conclusion that the appellant’s conviction could not stand alongside that of others' acquittals, indicating the necessity of rigorous scrutiny in witness credibility. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The case involves an appeal against a conviction for murder, where the appellant Balaram was originally convicted based on witness testimonies (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized the importance of the reliability of witness testimony for a conviction. Witnesses are categorized into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and partly reliable. Only wholly reliable witnesses can support convictions without corroboration (!) (!) .
-
The testimonies of witnesses PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand were critically examined. It was found that their testimonies contained inconsistencies and were deemed wholly unreliable, especially since the same evidence was disbelieved concerning other accused persons (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the appellant Balaram's conviction was based on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of other accused, which was inconsistent and problematic. As a result, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that previous enmity, used as a motive, was not sufficient to establish guilt and that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out when motive is based on past enmity (!) .
-
Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant, provided his detention was not required elsewhere (!) (!) .
-
The decision underscores the necessity of rigorous scrutiny of witness credibility and the importance of reliable evidence in criminal convictions, especially in cases involving serious charges like murder.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the shooting incident leading to legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the reliability of witness testimonies. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. evaluating witness credibility and judicial observations. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. final ruling on appeal resulting in acquittal. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGEMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.276 of 1995 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant as well as Rameshwar (since deceased) and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind passed in Sessions Trial No.70 of 1984. 1 Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2023.11.11 15:58:48 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified
2. The prosecution story as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus:-
2.1 PW.5-Ramkali, PW.6-Mulchand along with their relative Pannalal (PW.8) and son-Ashok as well as grand- daughter Rani and two other villagers namely, Badri and Mahesh were going on a bullock cart to Mau from Ujhawal at around 8-9 a.m. Pannalal (PW.8) was driving the cart. It is the case of the prosecution that when the cart reached near village Rasnol, two persons came in front of the cart and stopped their cart. Thereafter, 3-4 other persons also came there.
2.2 It is the prosecution case that Rameshwar (since deceased), appellant-Balaram, Uma Charan and Munna had come there after ten minutes of stopping of the cart, accused-Rameshwar fired the first shot and it hit Ashok in his chest. Thereafter, another shot was fired by accused- Uma Charan, which hit Ashok in the arms and thereafter, the third shot was fired which hit Ramkali (PW.5) in her right thigh.
2.3 As a result of firing, Ashok had become unconscious and was brought to Mau on cart. Pannalal reported the incident to the police on the basis of which an FIR came to be lodged initially for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’). Following the death of Ashok, the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the IPC .
3. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, it came to be committed to the Special Judge & Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. Six accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 302, 149, 307 and 341 of the IPC . The learned Special Judge & Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind at the conclusion of the trial, found that accused Ram Bharosey, Munna, Uma Charan and Amar Singh were entitled to be acquitted for the charges levelled against them. However, Rameshwar (since deceased) was found guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 , 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and appellant- Balaram was found guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 , 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 of the IPC .
4. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the accused which was dismissed by the High Court.
Being further aggrieved, Rameshwar and Balaram filed an appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Rameshwar has died and as such, the appeal against him has abated, which leaves us only with the appeal of the appellant-Balaram.
5. Heard Shri R. Chandrachud, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.V.V. Pattabhiram, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh.
6. Shri Chandrachud submits that, on the basis of very same evidence, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted four accused persons. He further submits that, though the evidence of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand has specifically attributed a gun shot to Uma Charan, their evidence has been disbelieved insofar as Uma Charan is concerned. However, on the basis of th
