SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION, RULING THAT MINOR INCONSISTENCIES DO NOT UNDERMINE A WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mittal passed a Judgement dated 08-07-2024 in the matter of Joy Devaraj vs. the State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2013 and held that the law does not mandate a conviction to be based on the oral testimony of at least two witnesses whose accounts match. Furthermore, it emphasized that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. If the testimony of a single witness is found to be completely reliable by the court, it can serve as the basis for a conviction.

FACTS:

1)  That the Appeal mentioned above was filed before the Supreme Court by one, Joy Devaraj (Appellant/Accused) against the State of Kerala (Respondent), challenged the Order dated 28.09.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, (High Court), wherein the High Court dismissed the Appellant’s Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2007) under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) (Appeals from Convictions). Additionally, through the Impugned Judgment dated 28.09.2011, the High Court upheld the Conviction of the Appellant by the Sessions Court, Thalassery (Trial Court).

2) That the Appellant, part of an unlawful assembly, murdered Bobby (Victim) in the evening of 26.12.1999, due to a dispute arising on 24.12.1999, between Sufras @ Rinku, Accused No 4 (A4) and Bennet Ignatius (PW5).

3) According to the Prosecution, the sequence of events leading to the Victim’s death reveals that the Victim and PW5 were members of an ‘Anti-Liquor Movement,’ attempting to persuade the public to give up drinking alcohol. On 24.12.1999, PW5 got into an altercation with A4, an alleged illicit liquor vendor. The Victim supported PW5 in the altercation and consequently had a confrontation with A4. During the argument, A4 threatened the Victim’s life, which, motivated the attack on the Victim on the evening of 26.12.1999.

4) On the same day, Dikson Jerry (PW1) was standing near the Victim’s house with K.T. Varghese (PW2) and Byju (CW2). The Victim was standing on the street, about 5 meters from PW1, talking to K.R. Rainold Suresh (PW3) and Jerry Mariyadas (PW6), when Renjith T.M. (PW4) arrived on his scooter and joined the Victim’s group. Around 7:40 PM, the Appellant and the other Accused, armed with deadly weapons, approached the Victim.

5) Thereafter, sensing danger, the Victim attempted to flee on PW4’s scooter, but the attackers quickly intercepted him. The Appellant, armed with a dagger, grabbed the Victim, pulled him to the ground, and stabbed him in the left side of his lower chest. The other Accused struck the Victim with hockey sticks. After the attack, the Accused hurled a bomb at PW1’s house door while retreating. PW1, PW2, and CW2 rushed the Victim to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

6) PW1 lodged an F.I.R. 131 of 1999 under sections 143 (Punishment for being a member of Unlawful Assembly), 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 302 (Punishment for murder) r/w 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) around 10:45 PM at Kannur City Police Station.

7) Further, the Investigation culminated in a charge sheet against 15 Accused, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, registered as Sessions Case No. 201/2002. The Accused raised trial, and the Sessions Court, in its Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2006, found the Appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC. The Co-Accused were found guilty of lesser crimes and suitably sentenced.

TRIAL COURT:

The Trial Court observed that the Appellant, part of an Unlawful Assembly, attacked the Victim with a dagger during a premeditated incident. Further, eyewitness testimonies consistently identified the Appellant as the primary assailant. The medical evidence corroborated the fatal chest wound inflicted by the Appellant. Despite minor discrepancies in witness statements, the Court found them credible. Consequently, the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

HIGH COURT:

The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s Conviction, finding the eyewitness testimonies of PW1 and PW2 credible despite minor inconsistencies regarding the weapon used. Further, the Court noted the Appellant’s premeditated intent and his active role in the fatal stabbing of the victim. Medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, establishing that the injury inflicted by the Appellant was sufficient to cause death. The High Court dismissed the Appellant’s arguments about witness credibility and the nature of the injury, affirming the life imprisonment sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

SUPREME COURT:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 28.09.2011 of the High Court, the Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 32 / 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was registered on 03.01.2013. The Apex Court, vide Order dated 08.07.2024, made the following observations:

ISSUES:

i) Whether the eyewitness testimonies, which contained inconsistencies about the weapon used and the Appellant’s specific actions, were reliable enough to uphold the conviction.

ii) Whether the hostile testimony of PW4 undermined the Prosecution’s Case.

iii) Whether the single stab wound inflicted by the Appellant constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC, considering the nature and location of the injury.

OBSERVATIONS:

a) The Apex Court noted that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies are not uncommon and do not necessarily undermine their credibility. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2, despite inconsistencies regarding the weapon used, were consistent in identifying the Appellant as the attacker who inflicted the fatal wound.

b) Further, the hostile testimony of PW4 did not significantly impact the Prosecution’s Case, as it did not provide an alternative version of events that contradicted the other eyewitnesses.

c) The Supreme Court observed that the Appellant was part of an Unlawful Assembly with a premeditated intent to attack the victim, and the stab wound inflicted was on a vital part of the body, which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death.

d) The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, and the nature of the injury supported the finding that the Appellant had the intention to cause death. The Court, therefore, found the conviction under Section 302 IPC to be justified.

CONCLUSION:

Based on aforementioned facts, the Bench upheld the Conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the Apex Court found that the prosecution had successfully established their case beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant, as part of an Unlawful Assembly, had premeditatedly attacked the Victim with a deadly weapon, resulting in his death. The Court emphasized the consistency and reliability of key eyewitness testimonies despite minor discrepancies, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.

Therefore, the Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Judgment of the High Court, and the Appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.

 

Editor’s Comments:

The Criminal Law states that a person can not be deemed to be guilty till the crime is deemed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because of this first principle, many guilty people have got off the hook, taking advantage of the fact that there is reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, if the court were to dismiss concrete evidence on the ground that there is a minor difference in the statement of witnesses then all criminals will get off the hook. As it is the conviction rate in India as of 2023 is showing at @39% which is much lower than the international conviction rate and ought to improve. It is hoped that the change in criminal law will bring around a greater conviction rate.

 

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer

 

Edited by:

Sushila Ram (Advocate)

Chief Consultant and Editor

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services