Author: Akanksha Kumari, Amity University Haryana
ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case of Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) deals with the critical issues surrounding the reliability of witness testimony in criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 14th March 2023. Nand Lal was accused under Section 302 of IPC which deals with murder. However, the accused appealed in the Supreme Court and challenged the validity of the evidence and the fairness of the investigation. Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out that convictions should not be based solely on the statements of witnesses presented without supporting evidence. The court stressed that there were significant delays in the filing of FIR which ultimately raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution claims. The court also observed that the circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which upheld the convictions and life sentences of the accused. This ruling of the Supreme Court highlights the principle of due process of law in the judicial system of India, ensuring that convictions are grounded on substantial evidence rather than circumstantial evidence.
CASE DETAILS
|
i) Judgement Cause Title / Case Name |
Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh |
|
ii) Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015 |
|
iii) Judgement Date |
14th March 2023 |
|
iv) Court |
Supreme Court of India |
|
v) Quorum / Constitution of Bench |
Justice D.Y Chandrachud (Chief Justice of India) and Justice J.B Pardiwala |
|
vi) Author / Name of Judges |
Justice Vikram Nath Justice B.R. Gavai Justice Sanjay Karol |
|
vii) Citation |
(2023) 2 SCC 276 |
|
viii) Legal Provisions Involved |
Indian Penal Code :- Section 302- This section deals with punishment for murder. Indian Evidence Act:- Section 134- It states that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, but the evidence must be credible and reliable. Section 3- Defines evidence and the importance of the quality of evidence presented in the court. Section 27- Relates to the admissibility of statements made by an accused in certain circumstances when they lead to discovery of fact. Code of Criminal Procedure:- Section 154- This section deals with the information on cognizable offenses and the requirement of police to register an FIR. Section 161- This section relates to the examination of witnesses by police during the investigation.
|
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
Introduction-
In the landmark judgment of Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court highlighted the crucial issues related to the standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, particularly revolving around serious charges such as murder. The Supreme Court also underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence and the significance of fair trial in investigation and reinforcing the principles of justice within the legal framework of India.
Background –
The incident occurred on November 3, 2006, when a violent altercation subsequently led to the death of an individual. The FIR (First Information Report) following the incident was lodged, however, there was a delay of several hours in occurrence. This raised the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- The trial court convicted Nand Lal and several others under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. This conviction was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court on November 11, 2014.
- However, on being dissatisfied with the High Court judgment, the accused Nand Lal filed an appeal to the Supreme Court asserting the issue that the investigation was not conducted fairly and thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The prosecution failed to establish the sequential chain of circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Supreme Court also emphasized that convictions based solely on the grounds of oral testimony without any supported evidence by the interested witnesses are unsustainable without corroborative evidence. Here ‘interested witnesses’ means that their testimonies could be biased.
- The prosecution also failed to explain the injuries sustained by one of the accused further weakening the case. Due to these loopholes in the investigation, the Supreme Court set aside both Trial and High Court judgments and acquitted Nand Lal and other accused from all the charges.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- i) Procedural Background of the Case
- Investigation Stage: After the lodging of the FIR, Inspector Kamal Singh conducted an investigation and subsequently filed a chargesheet with charges of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against twelve individuals before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Baloda Bazaar. The case was ultimately transferred to Sessions Court for trial due to the nature of the charges.
- Trial Court Conviction: During the trial process, the prosecution presented circumstantial evidence before the court such as blood-stained objects which was found near the accused. The oral testimony of the witnesses claiming to be present at the time of the commission of the crime. And also established the motive of the accused for the crime based on the allegations. As a result, the trial court found Nand Lal guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
- High Court Appeal: Nand Lal appealed the trial court’s decision in Chhattisgarh High Court on November 11, 2014. The High Court, however, upheld the trial court’s judgment, on being satisfied that the prosecution has presented the evidence sufficient enough to convict the accused.
- Supreme Court Appeal: The accused challenged their conviction in the Supreme Court. The appellants raised the issues regarding the delay in lodging of FIR, procedural lapses in the investigation, lack of direct evidence, and absence of substantial evidence. As a result, the Supreme Court heard the appeal and ruled on March 14, 2023, highlighting that convictions were solely based on oral testimony from interested witnesses without supported evidence.
- ii) Factual Background of the Case
- Incident: The case revolved around the suspicious death of an individual allegedly caused by Nand Lal. The incident occurred on November 3, 2006. Following the incident, FIR was registered, however, on November 4, 2006. The period between the death confrontation and the registering of the FIR signified the delay of several hours in reporting the incident. The FIR includes the details that the accused were involved in the murder but notably their names were absent from the important documents such as merger panchnama, spot panchanama, and inquest panchanama.
- Prosecution Allegations: The prosecution claimed that Nand Lal and other accused had personal enmity with the victim causing the death of the victim. Although there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution stressed the circumstantial evidence to prove its evidence.
- Defence Denial: Nand Lal denied all the allegations by asserting that he had been falsely portrayed in the case due to local rivalry. The defence in their supporting arguments highlighted the procedural lapses of the investigation and argued that the prosecution failed to establish the accused guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to provide substantial evidence.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the failure of the prosecution to clarify the significant delay in filing the FIR compromises the credibility of the case and infringes the principle of due process henceforth affecting the reliability of evidence presented against the accused.
- Whether the absence of an explanation regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, along with the dependence on testimonies from interested witnesses without sufficient corroboration, raises concerns over the burden of proof necessary for a conviction in a criminal trial.
PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the names of the accused Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular have not been mentioned in the key documents such as merger panchnama, spot panchanama, and inquest panchanama which subsequently raised doubts over their involvement. The names of the accused only appeared on the First Information Report (FIR). Moreover, the FIR was alleged to have been lodged at 03:10 A.M on November 4, 2006, however, the incident had occurred at 08:30 P.M on November 3, 2006 which creates a doubt that the FIR has been fabricated and the original FIR has been suppressed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the three eyewitnesses that are Mangtin Bai, Khomlal and Purnima Bai were described as interested witnesses and their oral testimony was inconsistent. Therefore, conviction on the basis of such interested witnesses whose testimony is not trustworthy and is unsustainable unless there is some supporting evidence of their testimony.
The learned counsel submits that all three eyewitnesses have made omnibus allegations against the appellants and have no as such credible evidence related to the incident. Given that the incident occurred at night during the power cut, the defense questions the reliability of witnesses who claim to have witnessed the incident in moonlight and lamplight. Additionally, one of the witnesses admitted that he was hiding during the incident making it unlikely to be true that he could have witnessed the incident.
The defense also highlighted the fact that the accused no.11 that is Naresh Kumar, sustained grievous injuries against which the prosecution failed to explain. It was submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the information received from Naresh Kumar. The defense argues that it is improbable for the accused to participate in the assault after sustaining grievous injuries.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Respondent submitted that all three eyewitnesses that are Mangtin Bai, khomlal, and Purnima Bai have clearly implicated all the appellants including Nand Lal. PW-2 and PW-9 specifically mentioned the present appellants in their testimony corroborating the prosecution case.
The prosecution asserts that the witnesses belong to a rustic village, and therefore minor discrepancies in their testimonies should not lead to their rejection. Henceforth, the testimonies of the interested witnesses cannot be discarded if they are found to be reliable, cogent, and trustworthy.
The prosecution also stresses on the fact that the witnesses are injured, which establishes their presence at the spot of the incident. This presence strengthens their credibility.
The prosecution argues that while there was a delay in lodging the FIR, alone delay of the FIR alone is not significant enough to discredit the prosecution’s case. The prosecution has sufficiently provided evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, despite delay.
RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
-
- Section 302: Punishment for Murder
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”[1]
- Section 34: Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”[2]
- Section 149: Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offense Committed in Prosecution of Common Object
“If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the commission of that offense, is a member of the assembly, is guilty of that offense.”[3]
- Section 120B: Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy
“Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offense.”[4]
- Section 154: Information in Cognizable Cases
“(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense, if given orally, shall be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, and shall be read over to the informant.”
“(2) The substance of such information shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe.”[5]
- Section 157: Procedure for Investigation
“(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offense, he shall proceed to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case.”
“(2) If it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground for entering on the investigation, he shall not investigate the case.”[6]
- Section 161: Examination of Witnesses by Police
“(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, subject to the provisions of this section, examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.”
“(2) The police officer shall reduce the substance of such examination to writing.”[7]
- Section 164: Recording of Confessions and Statements
“(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation.”
“(2) A confession made under this section shall be recorded in the manner provided in the Code.”[8]
- Section 173: Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation
“(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.”
“(2) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate a report in writing of the result of the investigation.”[9]
- Section 200: Examination of Complainant
“A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense on the complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and shall reduce the substance of such examination to writing.”[10]
- Section 313: Power to Examine Accused
“(1) In every trial, the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any cause to show why he should not be convicted.”
“(2) The court may, in its discretion, put such questions to the accused as it considers necessary.”[11]
- Section 118: Who May Testify
“All persons shall be competent to testify unless the law provides otherwise.”[12]
- Section 134: Burden of Proof
“The burden of proof lies on that party who would fail if no further evidence is presented.”[13]
- Section 145: Cross-Examination as to Previous Statements
“A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced to writing, and if it is in writing, it must be shown to him.”[14]
- Section 157: Previous Statements to Corroborate
“In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any previous statement made by him may be proved.”[15]
JUDGEMENT
-
- RATIO DECIDENDI
- The Supreme Court held in this case that the conviction of accused of the accused was unsustainable due to a lack of corroborative evidence alongside the oral testimonies of the interested witnesses. The court highlighted the fact that the prosecution failed to justify the significant delay in lodging the FIR and also mentioned that the names of the accused were not present in any of the key documents.
- GUIDELINES
- Witness testimonies should be corroborated by independent evidence to ensure reliability and the credibility of the witnesses should be assessed if they are involved in the outcome of the case.
- OVERRULING JUDGMENTS
- The court’s judgement in this case did not explicitly overruled any prior judgements.
- OBITER DICTA
- The Supreme Court emphasized the prosecution’s duty to present complete transparency of the events instead of suppressing the evidence for the favourability on the side of the accused. This ensures fairness in the judicial process.
- CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
- RATIO DECIDENDI
The judgment highlights the crucial role of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. It emphasizes the duty of the judiciary to ensure that conviction relies on a thorough assessment of evidence especially when testimonies are provided by interested witnesses. As a result, this ruling safeguards the rights of the accused and maintains the integrity of the judicial system.
REFERENCES
[1] Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[2] Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[3] Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[4] Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[5] Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[6] Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[7] Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[8] Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[9] Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[10] Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[11] Section 313 od the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[12] Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[13] Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[14] Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[15] Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[16] (1976) 4 SCC 394
[17] (1975) 2 SCC 7
[18] (1991) 2 SCC 330
[19] (2003) 5 SCC 409
[20] (2019) 6 SCC 634
[21] (1999) 2 SCC 191
[22] (2007) 13 SCC 501
[23] AIR 1957 SC 614
