Supreme Court Acquits Two Men in 1981 Murder Case Due to Unreliable Witness Testimony and Procedural Lapses — “No Effort Was Made to Verify Thumb Impressions or Record Supplementary Statements of Witnesses”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of two appellants who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It held that the prosecution had failed to conduct a fair investigation, and the High Court and the Sessions Court had overlooked critical contradictions and suppression of material evidence, including affidavits by eyewitnesses exonerating the appellants. The Court acquitted the appellants, observing:

“It is unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of PW-4. The failure to conduct further investigation based on the affidavits goes to the root of the matter.”

Facts

• FIR was registered on 5 May 1981 alleging that the deceased was shot and killed near his hut by three accused, including the two appellants.
• The prosecution claimed that the deceased was in an illicit relationship with PW-7, and that the accused, armed with weapons, attacked both.
• PW-4, an alleged eyewitness, reported hearing gunshots and seeing the accused flee.
• The Trial Court convicted appellant nos. 1 and 2 (accused nos. 2 and 3) on 16 October 1982; accused no. 1 (allegedly armed only with a danda) was acquitted.
• The High Court upheld the conviction in 2018.

Issues

1. Whether the conviction based primarily on the testimony of PW-4 was legally sustainable?
2. Whether suppression of affidavits filed by other eyewitnesses and failure of fair investigation vitiated the prosecution’s case?
3. Whether the High Court and Trial Court failed to consider critical evidence from the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• There were contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses PW-5 and PW-6.
• Affidavits by PW-5 and PW-6 had exonerated the appellants during the bail stage, yet these were not properly considered.
• PW-7, who turned hostile, stated that PW-4 and another person, Abrar, were the real culprits.
• Delay in lodging FIR (at 6:30 am for a 2:00 am incident), inquest (11:30 am), and post-mortem (3:40 pm) cast doubt on the prosecution case.
• Weapons allegedly used in the offence were not recovered and no FSL report was on record.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The testimonies of PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 consistently implicated the appellants and went unchallenged on key aspects.
• PW-7 was declared hostile and her evidence should be excluded.
• No material contradiction or omission was brought out during cross-examination of key witnesses.
• There were concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts which should not be disturbed.

Analysis of the Law

The Court emphasized the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 and reiterated that the obligation to conduct a fair investigation lies with the police. The failure to investigate the affidavits, to record supplementary statements of key witnesses, and to verify the thumb impressions constituted a breach of that duty.

The Court further noted:

“By failing to carry out further investigation on the basis of the said affidavits, the prosecution has failed to carry out a fair investigation. Moreover, the prosecution tried to suppress the affidavits.”

Precedent Analysis

While no specific earlier judgments were cited by the Court, the reasoning aligns with the constitutional requirement of fair investigation as laid down in prior decisions like Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram—both stressing the importance of integrity in investigation and the dangers of conviction based solely on uncorroborated or compromised evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

• PW-5 and PW-6 had filed affidavits stating the appellants were not involved. These were acknowledged by the Sessions Court during bail proceedings.
• PW-7’s affidavit also named different assailants.
• Investigating Officer (PW-10) admitted in cross-examination that he received the affidavits but failed to conduct follow-up investigation or file counter-affidavits.
• No effort was made to verify thumb impressions or record supplementary statements of witnesses despite legal procedures under CrPC being available.
• PW-5 was detained for 24 hours before his statement was recorded, casting further doubt on voluntariness and reliability of testimony.
• In the absence of recovered weapons or FSL report, the prosecution’s version lacked corroborative support.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, holding:

“The failure to conduct further investigation based on the affidavits goes to the root of the matter. The failure to recover the weapons of offence also becomes relevant… It is unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of PW-4.”

The appellants’ bail bonds were cancelled.

The Court also reiterated its prior direction that trial court records should not be termed “Lower Court Records”, as this offends the constitutional ethos.

Implications

• Reaffirms the constitutional mandate of fair investigation and trial.
• Highlights judicial concern over suppression of exculpatory evidence by investigating agencies.
• Underscores the duty of the prosecution to conduct thorough investigation, especially when credible exonerating material surfaces.
• Signals to lower courts the importance of scrutinizing procedural fairness in criminal trials.
• Reinforces the principle that hostile or coerced testimonies, if not properly examined, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Direction to Fill Posts Under Repealed Quota Rules — “Right to Be Considered for Promotion Arises on the Date of Consideration, Not Vacancy” — Amendment Process Cannot Be Undermined by Judicial Direction