Supreme Court Acquits Three in 1997 Assam Murder Case: Key Ruling on Witness Credibility and Evidence

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 26, 2019, delivered a significant ruling in the case of Samsul Haque v. The State of Assam. The case pertained to a murder that occurred in 1997, where multiple accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court’s verdict overturned the conviction of three accused individuals, granting them the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses.

Background of the Case

The incident took place on March 17, 1997, at 7:00 AM in the Kalia Hotel, Assam, where the victim, Keramat Ali Maral, was allegedly attacked by a group of individuals. According to the FIR lodged by his son, Nazrul Islam (PW-3), multiple accused entered the tea stall, and two of them fired at the victim while others attacked him with daggers and swords.

Following the investigation, charges were framed against all accused under various sections of the IPC. Some accused individuals, including Abdul Hai, were found to be the main perpetrators. However, others, including accused Nos. 7, 8, and 9, were charged based on allegations of instigation.

Trial Court Verdict

The Sessions Judge, Morigaon, convicted some accused while acquitting others. The trial court held that accused No.1, Abdul Hai, was the principal offender, and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were also found guilty. However, accused No. 9, Samsul Haque, was acquitted, as the prosecution failed to prove his involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court Appeal

The State of Assam challenged the acquittal, and the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision, convicting accused No. 9 (Samsul Haque) and two others (accused Nos. 2 and 3). The court relied on witness testimonies that accused No. 9 had allegedly given orders to attack the victim. The three convicted individuals subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Accused No. 9’s counsel contended:

• Vague allegations in the FIR: The complaint merely stated that the incident occurred “at the instance and instigation” of the accused, without specifying direct involvement.
• Inconsistent testimonies: Key witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, and PW-6) provided contradictory statements, creating doubts about their credibility.
• Independent witness contradicted prosecution: PW-1, the only independent witness, did not implicate accused No. 9, stating that he was not present at the scene.
• Failure to put prosecution case to accused: The statement under Section 313 CrPC did not adequately present the allegations to accused No. 9, depriving him of a fair defense.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution argued:

• Credibility of witness testimonies: The statements of PW-3, PW-4, and PW-6 consistently pointed to accused No. 9’s role in ordering the attack.
• FIR clearly implicated the accused: The complaint mentioned that the accused instigated the crime, justifying their conviction.
• High Court’s power to overturn acquittals: The State argued that the appellate court had the authority to reverse acquittals if it found substantial errors in the trial court’s findings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the case in light of legal principles governing witness credibility, the role of independent testimony, and procedural safeguards under Section 313 CrPC. The bench made the following key observations:

1. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies

The Court noted that the three key witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, and PW-6) were all related to the victim, raising concerns about their impartiality. Their statements varied in describing the role of accused No. 9.

“Testimonies that undergo significant changes between the FIR and trial must be scrutinized with extra caution before forming the basis of conviction.”

2. Independent Witness Testimony Contradicted the Prosecution

The only independent eyewitness (PW-1) stated that he did not see accused No. 9 at the crime scene, contradicting the prosecution’s case.

“Where an independent witness’s testimony directly contradicts prosecution evidence, courts must exercise caution before convicting the accused.”

3. Violation of Section 313 CrPC

The Court found that the prosecution failed to present the complete case against accused No. 9 during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. This procedural lapse undermined the fairness of the trial.

“A fair trial requires that all material circumstances against the accused be put to them in their Section 313 statement, ensuring they have an opportunity to defend themselves.”

4. No Bullet Injuries or Forensic Evidence

Despite allegations that accused Nos. 2 and 3 fired at the victim, the post-mortem examination revealed no bullet wounds. Furthermore, no firearms were recovered from the accused, weakening the prosecution’s case.

“Where medical evidence contradicts key allegations, courts must carefully assess the reliability of witness testimonies.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused individuals, holding that:

• Accused No. 9 was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of forensic evidence.
• The procedural lapses under Section 313 CrPC vitiated the fairness of the trial.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal trials in India:

• Emphasis on Independent Witnesses: The judgment highlights the importance of corroborating prosecution cases with unbiased testimonies.
• Section 313 CrPC Compliance: Courts must ensure that all incriminating evidence is properly put to the accused to uphold fair trial standards.
• Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases: The decision reinforces that mere allegations or inconsistent witness statements cannot be the basis for conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Samsul Haque v. The State of Assam reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on consistent, credible evidence. By overturning the High Court’s conviction and restoring the trial court’s acquittal, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of fair trial procedures and the presumption of innocence in criminal law.

Petitioner Name: Samsul Haque.
Respondent Name: The State of Assam.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Assam.
Judgment Date: 26-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Samsul Haque vs The State of Assam Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category