Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 25th October 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Honorable Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Honorable Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Acts and Sections: Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Cited Judgments: Jai Karan v. State of U.P. Govindaraju v. State by Sivaramapuram PS State of U.P. v. Dharmaraj Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, Chandu Bhai v. State of Gujarat
Introduction
In the recent case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan & Ors., the Supreme Court of India upheld a High Court decision that reversed a conviction in a murder case due to insufficient evidence. The apex court's analysis focuses on establishing the standards of proof required for criminal convictions, especially in cases where earlier courts arrive at divergent conclusions. This judgment reaffirms the importance of credible and consistent evidence, particularly in cases hinging on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and relatives of the deceased.
This article delves into the Court's rationale in confirming the High Court’s acquittal of the accused, addressing the threshold for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and examining the implications of the discrepancies in witness testimonies.
Background of the Case
On 1st October 1996, Ramjan Khan, along with Musaf Khan and Habib Khan, allegedly murdered Naseem Khan near a village well in Karaikheda, Madhya Pradesh. The accused were initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in 1998, primarily based on the testimony of two minor brothers of the deceased and their mother, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, the High Court later reversed this conviction, leading to the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The key legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in giving the accused the benefit of doubt based on the assessment of evidence that the trial court had found sufficient for conviction.
Supreme Court’s Approach to Acquittal Appeals
The Honorable Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia highlighted that an acquittal by a higher appellate court warrants interference only when there is clear perversity in its reasoning or a gross miscarriage of justice. The Court observed:
“Interference would be justifiable only when distinction is kept between perversity in appreciation of evidence and mere possibility of another view.”
In other words, simply because an alternate interpretation of the evidence might be possible does not automatically justify overturning an acquittal unless the conclusions are fundamentally flawed.
Credibility and Reliability of Witness Testimonies
The primary basis for conviction at the trial level was the testimonies of two minor eyewitnesses, PWs 5 and 9, who were siblings of the deceased, and the informant, PW8, their mother. The trial court found these testimonies reliable; however, the High Court identified significant contradictions and omissions, ultimately deeming the evidence insufficient for conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, emphasising that inconsistencies in witness testimonies—particularly when uncorroborated by other evidence—warrant a cautious approach in criminal cases.
For instance, the Supreme Court pointed out discrepancies in the mother’s account, observing:
“Neither in the FIR nor in the police statements did PW8 mention the deceased’s alleged dying declaration, which seriously impeaches her credibility.”
The Court further noted that while minor contradictions in testimonies may be disregarded, omissions on material aspects, such as the identity of the accused or the manner of assault, substantially weaken the prosecution’s case.
Significance of the Dying Declaration
The prosecution attempted to bolster its case with an alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased to his mother, PW8. However, the Supreme Court underscored that the absence of this detail in the FIR and previous police statements made this evidence unreliable. Quoting from the trial court’s findings, the Honorable Justices noted:
“Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness.”
Given that the declaration was not recorded contemporaneously and was later introduced during court proceedings, the High Court, with the Supreme Court’s concurrence, discredited it as unreliable.
Relevance of the Bolam Principle in Acquittal Appeals
The judgment also underscores the broader principle that in appeals against acquittal, courts should respect reasonable findings of lower courts unless there is a clear error in law or evidence assessment. This principle aligns with the Bolam Test in medical negligence cases, which holds that where there are two possible views, courts should defer to the one reached by a competent authority unless it is manifestly perverse.
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle set forth in State of U.P. v. Dharmaraj, explaining:
“If the view taken by the High Court is a reasonably possible view, though not the only view that could be taken, interference with acquittal would be uncalled for.”
This approach aims to ensure that criminal convictions are based on a high standard of proof, preventing the risk of wrongful convictions arising from speculative or insufficient evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the High Court’s acquittal in this case underscores the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. The judgment sets a clear precedent on the standards of evidence required for conviction, particularly in cases involving testimonial evidence from family members.
The Honorable Bench highlighted that:
“Omissions amount to material contradiction which will go into the core of the prosecution case.”
This ruling is a reminder to the judiciary and legal practitioners alike that credible and consistent evidence is paramount in securing a conviction. In cases where witness testimonies show discrepancies or are uncorroborated by forensic or circumstantial evidence, courts must err on the side of caution and uphold the presumption of innocence.
Comments