The Supreme Court of India has held that a conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the genesis and manner of the incident with certainty, ruling that such a failure vitiates the entire case. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while acquitting four men in a 35-year-old murder case, further held that the testimony of a ‘partially reliable witness’ requires independent and credible corroboration to form the basis of a conviction.
The judgment was delivered in an appeal by Kannaiya, challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had upheld his life sentence. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court also extended the benefit of acquittal to three co-convicts who had not filed an appeal.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on September 28, 1990. The FIR, lodged by the deceased’s father, alleged that ten individuals, including Kannaiya, were damaging a hut. When the deceased, Ramesh, intervened, he was brutally assaulted with weapons including a sword and an axe. Ramesh later died from his injuries on October 5, 1990.
On October 22, 1999, the trial court convicted four accused—Kannaiya, Govardhan, Raja Ram, and Bhima—for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, while acquitting six others. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court, which prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was entirely fabricated, pointing out that the key initial witnesses, including the informant, had turned hostile. The defence’s primary argument centered on the “glaring contradictions” in the accounts of the two eyewitnesses, Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12), who offered conflicting narratives about the incident’s location, genesis, and even each other’s presence.
The State maintained that the conviction was sound, resting on the “unimpeachable testimony” of eyewitnesses and corroborated by medical evidence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence, noting that the admitted political rivalry between the parties necessitated “greater care and circumspection” in evaluating the witness testimonies.
Suppression of Genesis Vitiates Prosecution Case:
The bench found that the prosecution’s failure to establish the foundational facts was fatal to its case. The two eyewitnesses presented entirely different versions of how and where the incident began, which were also inconsistent with the FIR. This led the Court to conclude that the very substratum of the prosecution’s case was demolished.
The judgment, citing precedents like Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, reiterated the principle that “when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted.”
Credibility of Eyewitnesses and Need for Corroboration:
Applying the principles from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, the Court categorized the witnesses and analyzed their credibility.
- Puniya (PW-12) was deemed a “wholly unreliable witness.” His testimony contradicted the FIR on the place of occurrence, his name was suspiciously absent from the FIR, and his conduct during and after the incident was found to be unnatural for an eyewitness.
- Madho Singh (PW-5) was classified as a “partially reliable witness.” The Court held that to act upon his testimony, the prosecution needed to provide independent corroborative evidence, which it failed to do. His testimony was riddled with improbabilities; for instance, he claimed to be standing just “two steps” from the brutal assault by ten armed men yet “escaped unscathed.” He also denied the presence of Puniya (PW-12) at the scene.
The Final Verdict
Concluding that the conviction rested on doubtful and contradictory evidence that failed to establish the genesis of the incident, the Court held it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction.
“The suppression of the genesis of occurrence and the shifting of the place of incident demolish the very substratum of the prosecution case,” the bench observed. Finding the entire prosecution case to have “fallen,” the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, acquitting the appellant and the three co-accused of all charges.
