SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Vinobhai - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1730 Of 2017
Decided On : 29-01-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 23] – Murder – Life sentence – There are material omissions which amount to contradiction – Version of both witnesses does not inspire confidence – Once evidence of witnesses is disbelieved, only remaining evidence against appellant is of recovery of knife at his instance – Appellant's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt – Impugned Judgment and final order passed by High Court and impugned Judgment passed by Trial Court quashed and set aside and appellant is acquitted of offences alleged against him. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court has convicted appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Conviction and sentence of appellant have been confirmed in appeal by High Court of Kerala.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has undergone incarceration for more than twelve years. Hence, he shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Oka, J.)
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence of the appellant have been confirmed in the appeal by the High Court of Kerala.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 31st December 2010, at about 11:45 am, he stabbed Ramakrishnan (deceased) with a knife. Grievous injuries were caused to the deceased as a consequence of which, he died. According to the case of the prosecution, there was previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased as he was involved in the murder of the appellant’s elder brother.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that the conviction is based on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses namely, Shaju (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5). He submitted that another witness, Thressiamma (PW- 6), did not support the prosecution. He submitted that the evidence of PW-4 does not inspire confidence. His version that the appellant inflicted two to three stabs on the deceased is an omission. He submitted that even his statement that he had seen the incident from a distance of fifteen feet was an omission. Inviting our attention to the evidence of PW-6, he submitted that his allegation against the appellant of having inflicted two to three stab wounds on the deceased is an omission. He submitted that both eyewitnesses appear to be chance witnesses. He also submitted that even according to the version of these two witnesses, there were other eyewitnesses who were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Kerala, relied on the testimony of PW-4, who stated that after he gave the first blow on the chest, the deceased fell on his chest. Thereafter, two to three blows were given. He submitted that this statement by PW-4 to the effect that the first blow was given by the appellant on the chest of the deceased was not an omission. The same is the case with the testimony of PW-5. He submitted that even assuming that there are few omissions and contradictions in the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5, the same are not material. Therefore, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 28. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of both the eyewitnesses is believed by both the Courts. He submitted that as both of them supported the prosecution, chargesheet witnesses nos.12 and 14, who were also eyewitnesses according to the version of PW- 4 and PW-5, were not examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that as the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 cannot be disbelieved, no interference can be made with the impugned judgments. He also pointed out that the recovery of the weapon of the offence and bloodstained cloths was made at the instance of the appellant.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
5. We have perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Firstly, we will deal with the evidence of PW-4. His version is that he is in the business of distributing newspapers in the morning, and he uses his motorcycle for that purpose. He stated that he used to collect newspaper bundles at 03:30 am and complete the distribution work by 06:30 am. He stated that the incident happened in front of the shop of one Joseph at about 11:45 am. At that time, he was coming by his motorcycle. He saw the appellant putting his hand over the neck of the deceased. The appellant pulled him down and stabbed him in his
Murder – Conviction and sentence cannot be upheld where version of witnesses does not inspire confidence.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
The defendant's conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and the prosecution's failure to examine the investigating officer, raising reasonable doubt.
Failure of prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant in a murder case.
The higher evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot be considered mat....
Murder – Conviction solely based on recovery would not be tenable.
(1) Every contradiction or omission is not a ground to discredit witness or to disbelieve his/her testimony.(2) Theory of last seen together is helpful to prosecution if deceased was seen in company ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of direct evidence, particularly eyewitness testimony, in cases of this nature. The judgment also emphasized the relevance of moti....
The conviction for murder was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.