Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's murder conviction because the FIR, lodged by the deceased's father on the account of the sole eyewitness (the deceased's wife), spoke only of unknown masked assailants. Her naming of the appellant four days later, after admitted prior enmity, was an improvement that impeached the prosecution case. With that identification discarded and the recoveries not linked to the crime, nothing connected the appellant to the offence.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness's identification of the appellant, first made in her police statement four days after the incident, was reliable when the FIR based on her account mentioned only unknown masked assailants.
- Whether the recovery of articles bearing human blood of undetermined group corroborated the prosecution case.
- Whether the concurrent conviction under Sections 302/34 and 460 IPC could be sustained.
Provisions considered
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The wife's statement recorded on 21.04.2021, four days after the incident, first named the appellant and claimed his mask had fallen off. The Court doubted its genuineness, noting that a TIP would have been pointless had she already named an accused she knew well, and treated the belated naming as a manipulation driven by prior enmity. (¶¶ 10, 41, 42, 43)
- Sections 302 read with 34, and 460, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant's conviction and life sentence under these provisions, affirmed by the High Court, was set aside because no credible evidence connected him with the crime. (¶¶ 3, 46, 47, 48, 49)
Held
- The FIR was lodged on the eyewitness's account to her father-in-law and recorded the arrival of the masked men, their build, their weapon and the sequence of the assault, but not the appellant's name, any falling mask, or any illness of the witness. Omitting so crucial a fact, when every minor detail was conveyed, was unbelievable, and the later explanation of illness appeared to be an afterthought. (¶¶ 26, 31, 40, 41)
- Both key witnesses, who had admitted prior enmity with the appellant arising from the deceased's second marriage to his sister, improved and modulated their versions on oath, including changing the number of assailants and adding identification by voice and a fallen mask after being declared hostile. Their testimony was full of embellishments and contradictions. (¶¶ 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
- Following Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., where the FIR is lodged by a relative to whom all important facts would have been conveyed, omission of the accused's name is a vital omission. Here it was fatal, going to the root of the case and impeaching the prosecution's credibility. (¶¶ 44, 45)
- Once the identification is excluded, no credible evidence connects the accused. Recovered articles showing human blood whose group could not be determined cannot be connected with the crime. (¶¶ 12, 46, 47)
- The trial Court and the High Court committed grave errors of fact and law in appreciating the evidence, and the conviction could not stand. (¶¶ 48, 49)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; the appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.