Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 11 January 2019, which confirmed the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Badaun, dated 30 July 2008. The appellants, Subhash (Accused No. 3) and Gyanvati (Accused No. 6), were convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Surender, based on an FIR lodged by PW-1 Vedram on 16 February 2002. The prosecution case relied on the evidence of PW-1 (the informant) and PW-2 (an alleged eyewitness), with the postmortem report showing nine injuries, including one firearm injury and one neck injury. The Sessions Judge and High Court upheld the conviction, citing motive related to a prior murder case and consistency in eyewitness accounts. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing serious contradictions in the evidence, including material improvements in PW-1's testimony, the chance nature of PW-2's evidence, and discrepancies between the medical evidence and prosecution claims. The State contended that the contradictions were minor and did not affect credibility. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, noting that PW-1's deposition showed improvements over the FIR and examination-in-chief, particularly regarding which accused fired at the deceased. The medical evidence indicated only one firearm injury, contradicting the claim that multiple accused fired. PW-2's testimony as a chance witness was found unreliable. The Court held that the contradictions created reasonable doubt, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction Under Sections 302/149 IPC - Eyewitness Testimony Contradictions - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 302, 149 - The prosecution case rested on the evidence of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 (alleged eyewitness). The Supreme Court found material improvements in PW-1's deposition compared to the FIR and examination-in-chief, particularly regarding which accused fired at the deceased versus in the air. Held that such contradictions create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version, warranting acquittal. (Paras 14-15) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Medical Evidence Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 302, 149 - The postmortem report indicated only one firearm injury and one neck injury on the deceased. The prosecution alleged multiple accused fired firearms and two accused assaulted the neck. Held that the medical evidence belied the prosecution's case, as it did not support the claim of multiple firearm injuries or dual neck assaults, creating inconsistency. (Paras 6-7, 11) C) Criminal Law - Murder - Eyewitness Credibility - Chance Witness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 302, 149 - PW-2 was a chance witness who allegedly witnessed the incident while returning from the village pond. The Court noted that PW-2's testimony was subject to grave doubt and improvements, and his status as a chance witness reduced reliability. Held that the testimony of a chance witness with inconsistencies cannot sustain conviction. (Paras 5, 11) D) Criminal Law - Murder - Motive and Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 302, 149 - The Sessions Judge found motive based on the deceased being an accused in the murder of Rajesh's father. The Supreme Court emphasized that motive alone is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable evidence. Held that despite alleged motive, the evidence was unreliable, leading to acquittal. (Paras 7, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, considering alleged contradictions and inconsistencies
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and acquitted them.
Law Points
- Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and reliable
- medical evidence must corroborate prosecution case
- contradictions in evidence can lead to acquittal
- motive alone is insufficient for conviction
- burden of proof lies on prosecution
