A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case, State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors., involved a conviction under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning the alleged murder of an individual, Akbar, and injuries to other individuals. Four accused, Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2), Ghasita (A3), and Akhtar Hussain (A4), faced prosecution. The legal issue revolved around whether the conviction could stand based on the testimonies of witnesses deemed unreliable. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether inconsistencies in witness statements affected the validity of convictions under Section 302. The Court ultimately upheld the acquittal of A1 from Section 302 charges, maintaining only his conviction under Section 323. A2’s conviction under Section 302 was similarly overturned, with the Court affirming his lesser charge under Section 323. The case highlighted the significance of corroborative evidence and the unreliability of contradictory witness testimonies in serious criminal convictions.

Keywords: Witness reliability, Section 302 IPC, Conviction on eyewitness, Corroboration, Testimony credibility

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1307 & 1308 of 2012
• iii) Judgment Date: 12 January 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Justices M. M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra
• vi) Author: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
• vii) Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 404 : 2024 INSC 34
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the IPC; Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The proceedings arose from an incident on 9 January 1999, which resulted in the death of Akbar and injuries to others. The accused, motivated by previous enmity, allegedly attacked Akbar with deadly weapons. Charges were filed under various sections of the IPC against the accused for murder and causing hurt. After the initial trial, A4 (Akhtar Hussain) was acquitted in a separate trial, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. This appeal addressed the validity of the High Court’s judgment that upheld acquittal of certain charges against A1 and A2 and examined the credibility of witness testimonies in supporting the convictions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On the night of 9 January 1999, Deenu (PW-1), the complainant, along with his brother Akbar (the deceased) and Harun (PW1’s son), were attacked by the accused. The incident stemmed from a previous altercation between the parties. The accused, armed with weapons including a pharsa, kulhari, and lathi, allegedly inflicted fatal injuries on Akbar, who succumbed to his injuries two days later. Multiple injuries on Akbar’s head and body indicated the use of sharp-edged weapons. A1 allegedly used a lathi on Akbar’s legs, while A2 wielded a kulhari, and A3 a pharsa. During investigation, the police recovered the weapons used in the assault from A1, A2, and A3.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court erred in acquitting A1 from Section 302 IPC charges while convicting him under Section 323 IPC.
2. Whether the conviction of A2 under Section 302 IPC, based on witness testimonies, was legally sustainable.
3. Whether inconsistencies in witness statements justified the acquittal or required corroborative evidence for conviction.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Credibility of Witness Testimonies: The counsel for the appellant argued that the testimonies of Deenu (PW-1) and Ahmad (PW-2), both related to the deceased, were inconsistent and unreliable. The prosecution’s failure to examine independent witnesses, coupled with delays in registering the FIR, cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case.

2. Presence of Deenu: It was contended that Deenu’s presence at the scene was doubtful as PW-2’s statement under Section 161 CrPC did not corroborate this. Furthermore, the lack of bloodstains on Deenu’s clothes, despite his claim of assisting the deceased, weakened the prosecution’s claims.

3. Omissions and Contradictions: The defense emphasized discrepancies in witness statements, including variations between their initial testimonies and those given in subsequent trials, as grounds for questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Reliability of Prosecution Evidence: The State’s counsel argued that the conviction of A2 under Section 302 IPC was based on strong evidence and corroborative material, making the verdict justifiable.

2. Consistency Across Statements: Despite minor contradictions, the State contended that the core narrative presented by the prosecution witnesses was consistent and aligned with the evidence, particularly regarding A2’s role in the assault on Akbar.

3. Previous Enmity and Motive: The State underscored the previous enmity between the accused and the victim’s family as a significant motive for the crime, reinforcing the prosecution’s account of events.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, after examining witness inconsistencies, ruled that without strong corroboration, convicting A2 solely on the testimony of witnesses branded as unreliable by the trial court was unsafe. The Court held that in cases under Section 302 IPC, corroboration is crucial when witnesses exhibit bias or contradict their statements. Thus, A2’s conviction under Section 302 was overturned due to insufficient reliable evidence, but his conviction under Section 323 was upheld.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court opined that witness statements marred by contradictions and biased narratives, especially where previous enmity is a factor, necessitate cautious evaluation to avoid wrongful convictions.

c. Guidelines

1. Need for Corroboration: Courts must seek corroborative evidence when witness testimonies contain contradictions or reveal biases.
2. Assessment of Prior Enmity: Past enmity between parties should be considered a factor that may bias witness accounts and influence the credibility of statements.
3. Reliance on Unreliable Witnesses: Convictions based solely on untrustworthy witness accounts without supporting evidence are discouraged, especially in serious charges like murder.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases where witness reliability is compromised. This case illustrates the need for corroborative evidence, especially in situations where there is a history of animosity between the parties. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts should guard against convictions grounded in testimonies of potentially biased or unreliable witnesses. By partially overturning the convictions, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of ensuring justice through corroborated and reliable evidence, preventing potential miscarriages of justice.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. (Case Name): Citation and link if available
2. (Case Name): Citation and link if available

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 323, 34
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319