LI Network
Published on: January 13, 2024 at 11:36 IST
The Supreme Court annulled the conviction of an individual in a murder case dating back to 1999. The verdict hinged on the skepticism surrounding the testimony of prosecution witnesses, prompting the Court to overturn the conviction related to Sections 302 (murder) and 323 (simple hurt), read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
Disregarding the High Court’s ruling, the Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra aligned with the Trial Court’s findings, highlighting that the key prosecution witnesses had made contradictory and embellished statements. The Court emphasized that when witness statements exhibit inconsistencies, distortions, and improvements, they cannot be relied upon.
The case involved four accused individuals (A1, A2, A3, and A4) implicated in the assault and beating of the deceased. A1, A2, and A3 were initially convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 323, along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A4, who had absconded, later surrendered, facing a separate trial where he was acquitted. The High Court partially upheld the convictions of A1, A2, and A3, leading to the filing of appeals.
Observing the evidence presented, the Supreme Court questioned the credibility of two pivotal prosecution witnesses, Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8), stating that their testimonies in the second trial were unreliable due to contradictions, twisted facts, and improvements. Notably, both witnesses were deemed interested, as their statements were instrumental in the convictions of A1 and A2.
The Court held that relying solely on the statements of interested witnesses without substantial corroboration is unsafe, particularly in cases involving Section 302 of the IPC.
The verdict underscored that convictions based on statements from untrustworthy witnesses should be approached with caution, especially when there are indications of an attempt to falsely implicate an accused person.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, overturning the conviction of A2. The appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of A1 for murder charges under Section 34 IPC was rejected, but the conviction under Section 323 IPC was upheld.
Case Title: STATE OF HARYANA v. MOHD. YUNUS & ORS