A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court reversed the Karnataka High Court’s judgment convicting Vishwanatha for the murder of Devaki (aged 86), granting him the benefit of doubt. The prosecution alleged that Vishwanatha, along with co-accused Ravikumar, strangled Devaki during a robbery. PW-1 and PW-2 testified to witnessing the act through a window. The Court noted inconsistencies in evidence, particularly between eyewitness testimony and the autopsy report, which did not corroborate the manner of strangulation described. The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for Vishwanatha and doubts over his identity further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence for convicting an accused not previously known to witnesses. Ultimately, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keywords: Test Identification Parade, Acquittal Reversed, Eyewitness Testimony, Doubt on Identity, Benefit of Doubt

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Vishwanatha v. The State of Karnataka by the Secretary, Home Department

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2012

iii) Judgment Date: July 8, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.

vi) Author: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 50

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly stated

x) Case Related to: Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arose from the Karnataka High Court judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 450 IPC, reversing the trial court’s acquittal. The incident involved the alleged robbery and murder of an elderly woman, Devaki, at her residence. The conviction hinged on the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who identified the appellant and the co-accused, Ravikumar, as the perpetrators. The trial court acquitted the appellant, citing discrepancies between the autopsy report and eyewitness accounts, as well as procedural lapses, including the absence of TIP. The Supreme Court critically examined these issues, emphasizing adherence to evidentiary and procedural standards.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Devaki, aged 86, resided with her family in Kudupu, Mangalore.
2. On December 26, 2000, her children (PW-1 and PW-3) left for work, leaving her alone at home.
3. PW-1 returned around 12:30 PM and noticed unusual sounds from the house. She found the door bolted from inside and sought help from her neighbor, PW-2.
4. Through a window, PW-1 and PW-2 reportedly saw Ravikumar and an unidentified man strangulating Devaki using a cloth.
5. Ravikumar and the other accused fled the scene upon being spotted.
6. The autopsy confirmed strangulation as the cause of death, but the ligature marks conflicted with the manner described by the witnesses.
7. The trial court acquitted both accused, citing lack of corroboration and procedural lapses, including the absence of TIP for Vishwanatha.
8. The High Court reversed the acquittal, deeming discrepancies minor and relying on in-court identification by PW-1 and PW-2.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the absence of TIP for the appellant undermines the prosecution’s case.

ii. Whether eyewitness testimony suffices in the absence of corroborative evidence.

iii. Whether inconsistencies between the autopsy report and eyewitness accounts cast reasonable doubt.

iv. Whether the identity of the accused was conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Lack of TIP: The appellant argued that no TIP was conducted despite him being a stranger to PW-1 and PW-2, making their in-court identification unreliable.
2. Inconsistencies in Evidence: The appellant highlighted discrepancies between the eyewitness accounts and the autopsy report, which undermined the prosecution’s case.
3. Doubtful Identity: The appellant emphasized that six individuals named Vishwanatha resided in the locality, further complicating the issue of identity.
4. Procedural Lapses: The appellant contended that the arrest lacked independent witnesses or an arrest memo, rendering the process questionable.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Eyewitness Credibility: The State argued that PW-1 and PW-2 provided consistent and reliable testimony identifying the accused.
2. TIP Non-essential: The State asserted that TIP is not substantive evidence and its absence is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution.
3. Minor Discrepancies: The State downplayed the inconsistencies between the autopsy report and the testimonies as immaterial.
4. Proximity in Time: The State argued that the short interval between the crime and the trial minimized the risk of mistaken identification.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses, unreliable identification, and lack of corroborative evidence.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court emphasized the criticality of TIP in cases involving identification of strangers and the importance of corroborative evidence when eyewitness testimony is inconsistent.

c. Guidelines

1. TIP should be conducted in cases involving identification of strangers.
2. Corroborative evidence is essential when relying on eyewitness testimony.
3. Procedural fairness, including proper documentation of arrests, is critical to the credibility of the prosecution.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of TIP and discrepancies in evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court rightly upheld procedural and evidentiary standards, ensuring the accused’s right to a fair trial.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Mulla v. State of U.P. [2010] 2 SCR 633; (2010) 3 SCC 508.
2. Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 443; (2003) 5 SCC 746.

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 450, and 34.