Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 22.5.2005 where 14 persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to Hariram, who died the same night. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses, including PW2 Om Prakash and PW3 Ram Dayal as eyewitnesses. The trial court convicted five accused, including Jodhraj (A1) and Jagdish Prasad (A12), under Sections 148, 302/149, and 379 IPC, while acquitting others. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Bhanwar Lal (A3) by giving him benefit of doubt, finding the statements of PW2 and PW3 under Section 161 CrPC recorded after 18 days and exaggerated, but confirmed the conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad relying on the same witnesses. The Supreme Court held that if the deposition of PW2 and PW3 was not reliable for one accused, the same reasoning should apply to others unless there is further evidence. Since no other evidence implicated the appellants, the Court allowed their appeal, quashed their conviction, and acquitted them. The State's appeal against Bhanwar Lal's acquittal was dismissed as the High Court's reasons were cogent.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 302/149, 148, 379 IPC - Benefit of Doubt - Where the High Court disbelieved the deposition of eyewitnesses PW2 and PW3 for one accused due to delay in recording statements under Section 161 CrPC and exaggeration, but relied on the same witnesses to convict other accused, the Supreme Court held that the same benefit of doubt must be extended to all accused in the absence of any other incriminating evidence. The conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad was set aside and they were acquitted. (Paras 7-8)
B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - State Appeal - Section 378 CrPC - No Interference - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of Bhanwar Lal, finding cogent reasons for disbelieving the eyewitnesses, and dismissed the State's appeal. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction of the appellants while acquitting a co-accused on the same evidence, and whether the State's appeal against acquittal of Bhanwar Lal should be allowed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad, quashed their conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC, and acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt. The State's appeal against acquittal of Bhanwar Lal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Unreliable witness testimony
- Section 302/149 IPC
- Section 161 CrPC delay
- Sifting grain from chaff
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (11) 49
Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 8410 of 2016) with Criminal Appeal No. 1780 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5350 of 2017)
Ashok Bhushan, M. R. Shah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case.
Remedy Sought
Appellants Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad sought acquittal; State sought reversal of acquittal of Bhanwar Lal.
Filing Reason
Appellants convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC; State aggrieved by acquittal of Bhanwar Lal.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted five accused; High Court acquitted Bhanwar Lal but confirmed conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad while acquitting Bhanwar Lal on the same evidence.
Whether the State's appeal against acquittal of Bhanwar Lal should be allowed.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the High Court wrongly relied on PW2 and PW3 whose statements were recorded after 18 days and were exaggerated; same grounds for acquittal of Bhanwar Lal should apply to them.
State argued that Injury No. 3 was attributed to Jagdish Prasad and Injury No. 2 to Jodhraj, and PW2's deposition was reliable for them.
Acquitted accused Bhanwar Lal supported the High Court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the High Court disbelieves the deposition of eyewitnesses for one accused due to delay in recording statements under Section 161 CrPC and exaggeration, the same benefit of doubt must be extended to other accused convicted solely on the same evidence, in the absence of any other incriminating material.
Judgment Excerpts
if the deposition of PW2 and PW3 are not reliable qua one of the accused on the grounds stated hereinabove and one of the accused came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, the same benefit ought to have been given to the other accused also, unless there is some further material/evidence against the other accused.
the High Court has materially erred in confirming the conviction of the appellant solely relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3 whose deposition has been doubted by the High Court and not relied upon by the High Court so far as one of the accused is concerned, the same reasoning should be applied in the appellants’ case also
Procedural History
Trial court convicted five accused on 11.05.2012. Convicted accused appealed to High Court; State appealed against acquittal of others. High Court on 19.01.2016 acquitted Bhanwar Lal but confirmed conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad. These appeals were filed in the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 149, 148, 379, 323, 324, 326, 147
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 161, 378
