'Untrustworthy Witness Statement' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction In 1999 Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 12) set aside the conviction of a person in a murder case of 1999.

Doubting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court set aside the conviction for the offences committed under Sections 302(murder) and 323(simple hurt) read with Section 34(common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. 

Reversing the order and judgment passed by the High Court, the Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra, concurred with the finding made by the Trial Court that both the important prosecution witnesses made improvements in their statements. Therefore, when the statements are contrary, facts are twisted and improvements are made, no reliance can be made upon such statement.

In the instant case, four persons (A1, A2, A3 and A4) were named as accused for allegedly beating and assaulting the deceased. A1, A2 and A3 were convicted by the trial court under Section Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A4, who absconded, surrendered before the Trial Court, and a separate trial was conducted against him, where he was acquitted of the charges. The High Court, while deciding on the Appeal preferred by A1, A2 and A3, dismissed the appeal qua A3 and A2, but allowed in part acquittal of A1 of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC but maintained his conviction for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him for the period already undergone. In the meantime, A3 died, A1 was partly convicted and A4 was discharged, thus, the conviction of A2 only persists.

It is against the order and judgment of the High Court partly convicting A1 under Sections 323 r/w 34 and acquitting for the charges of murder, that the instant criminal appeal was filed by the State of Haryana challenging the impugned order and judgment of the High Court. A2 also filed a separate criminal appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Observation by the Court

After perusing the material evidences placed on record, the court doubted the testimonies made by two important prosecution witnesses and noted the fact that both the star witnesses of the prosecution namely Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8) are disbelieved in the second trial by clearly stating that their statements are contradictory, the facts are twisted and improvements are made.

Further, when the court came to know that PW 7 and PW 8 were the interested witnesses i.e., upon whom testimonies A1 and A2 were convicted, then the court noted that the conviction is not sustainable on the basis of the testimonies made by the interested witnesses as such testimonies cannot be relied without strong corroborating. To this effect, the court's observation in para 18 is meaningful:

“For trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness. When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be relied without strong corroboration.”

Conclusion

Thus, the court ultimately held that the credibility of prosecution evidence is under serious doubt because of twisting of facts and improvements made. Therefore, the court found that it is not safe to convict A2 for offence under Section 302 read 14 with Section 34 IPC on the basis of statement of such eyewitness. Thus, the court set-aside the impugned order and judgment passed by the High Court convicting A2.

Moreover, the court rejected the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against discharging A1 for charges framed under Section 34 r/w Section 34 IPC but sustained the conviction under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC.

Case Title: STATE OF HARYANA v. MOHD. YUNUS & ORS

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Click here to read the judgment