Summary
Three appellants convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for a 1988 knife attack in Kota challenged their life sentences. The Court found the sole surviving eyewitness, the informant PW-1, to be an interested stock witness of the police whose account was contradicted by the investigating officers and the physical record, found the other eyewitnesses hostile or inconsistent, and found the investigation gravely deficient (motorcycle not seized, no blood-soil sample, weapon recoveries unproved and weapons not produced). Holding there was no credible evidence connecting the accused to the admittedly homicidal death, it acquitted all three.
Issues
- Whether the conviction for murder could rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1, an interested witness with criminal antecedents who admitted appearing as a police witness in another case.
- Whether the alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused were admissible and reliable under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether deficiencies in the investigation and inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the record entitled the appellants to the benefit of doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial court convicted under Sections 302/148 and the High Court modified this to Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 while maintaining life imprisonment; the Supreme Court set the conviction aside for want of credible evidence connecting the accused to the killing. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 5, 24, 25)
- Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial court had convicted the appellants under Sections 302/148 for rioting armed with deadly weapons; the High Court substituted Section 149. Noted as part of the procedural history. (¶¶ 2, 4.4, 5)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Recoveries of knives and a katar said to have been made on disclosure statements of the accused could not aid the prosecution: the recoveries were made days after the incident from open places accessible to anyone, bore no bloodstains, were not shown to the post-mortem doctor, the weapons were not produced in court, and all seizure witnesses turned hostile. (¶¶ 7.3, 16.1, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 17.1, 21)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused, examined under Section 313, denied the charge and alleged false implication; noted as part of the trial history. (¶ 4.4)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe State argued that concurrent findings of two courts warranted no interference under Article 136; the Court nevertheless re-examined the evidence and found no credible material connecting the accused to the offence. (¶¶ 8, 24)
Held
- The testimony of PW-1, the informant and only eyewitness relied upon, could not be the basis of conviction without corroboration. His conduct was highly unusual (hiding in a lane instead of going to the police station 200 metres away and raising no alarm), he contradicted himself on whether the deceased was stabbed before or after falling from the motorcycle, his account of 100 people standing by was improbable, he was embroiled in several criminal cases, and it was on record that he was a stock witness for the police, including in a case against one of the present accused. (¶ 18)
- The evidence of PW-4 (the deceased's brother-in-law) was riddled with inconsistencies: by his own timeline he could not have reached the scene before the deceased, he admitted finding a crowd saying a man had already been killed, he made no attempt to rescue or take his brother-in-law to hospital, and went to the police only two to three days later; he and PW-3 were ultimately declared hostile. (¶¶ 12.5, 13, 19)
- The investigation suffered from glaring inadequacies going to the root of the prosecution case: the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding was never seized and bore no bloodstains despite death by profuse bleeding, and the site map showed no motorcycle at the spot; no blood-soil sample was collected for forensic examination; and the clothes of the accused were not seized or examined. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The alleged recoveries of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were highly suspect and of no assistance: made several days after the incident from open places, without bloodstains, never shown to the doctor, never produced in court, and with every seizure witness turning hostile. (¶ 21)
- The narrative of a crowd of 100 to 150 onlookers was proved false by the police officers who found nobody and complete silence at the scene minutes after the FIR, and it was inconceivable that a gruesome assault 300 to 400 steps from the police station went unheard. A further material inconsistency between PW-1 and PW-17 as to who took the injured to hospital, and PW-1's unexplained failure to accompany him, impeached PW-1's credibility. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Although the death was undoubtedly homicidal, the prosecution must connect the accused to the murder by credible and legally admissible evidence; there being none, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and their convictions and sentences were set aside. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Both appeals allowed; judgments of the High Court dated 26.08.2011 and the trial court dated 10.03.2003 set aside; conviction and sentence of all three appellants set aside; appellants being on bail, their bail bonds discharged.