Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Thursday convicted former Bihar MLA and RJD leader Vijay Kumar Shukla alias Munna Shukla and another person and awarded them life imprisonment in 1998 sensational killing of ex state Minister Brij Bihari Prasad at a Patna hospital.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan, however, upheld the acquittal of another gangster politician former MP Suraj Bhan Singh, Mukesh Singh, Lallan Singh, Ram Niranjan Chaudhary and Rajan Tiwari, granting them the benefit of doubt in the case.

"The charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against Mantu Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Shukla alias Munna Shukla for the murders of Brij Bihari Prasad and (Bihar police personnel) Lakshmeshwar Sahu is proven and established beyond reasonable doubt," the bench said.

The court's judgment came on appeals filed by Rama Devi, former BJP MP and widow of the deceased, and the Bihar government through the CBI against the Patna High Court's 2014 judgment which acquitted all the nine accused, and reversed the trial court's decision, holding them guilty in the case.

Court noted the testimony of appellant Rama Devi who said her slain husband was an accused in the murder of political rival Devendra Nath Dubey. Her husband was also arrested in MEDHA scam by the CBI. He was subsequently lodged in Beur Jail. Due to his ill health, he was taken to Patna Medical College from where he was referred to IGIMS hospital.

Accused Mantu Tiwari is the nephew of the late Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased), who was the brother of Devendra Nath Dubey, a political rival of Rama Devi (PW-24). Devendra Nath Dubey was killed a day before the re-poll for the Motihari Lok Sabha Constituency. Brij Bihari Prasad was named as an accused in the case, the court noted.

The longstanding animosity is further highlighted by the fact that accused Vijay Kumar Shukla alias Munna Shukla is the brother of Chottan Shukla and Bhutkun Shukla, who were allegedly killed by the henchmen of Brij Bihari Prasad, court highlighted.

In the case, the bench noted the Tata Sumo and the Ambassador cars, in which assailants allegedly came, were not recovered. The weapons used in the offence, including the carbine belonging to the deceased Lakshmeshwar Sahu, also could not be recovered. 

"However, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the police to recover the vehicles and the weapons is not sufficient to undermine the credibility of the eyewitness accounts or the corroborative evidence regarding the cause of the homicidal deaths of Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu. The ocular version of the witnesses should not be disregarded solely because the weapon used in the crime and the vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or seized by the police," the bench said.

The Patna High Court, which acquitted all the accused, noted that the FIR was ante-timed as one of the grounds for its decision. 

"The occurrence having taken place at night on 13.06.1998, normally the FIR should have been sent to the jurisdictional magistrate on 14.06.1998. However, 14.06.1998 being a Sunday was a holiday. The FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional magistrate on 15.06.1998. There is, therefore, an explanation for the delay in forwarding a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate in terms of Section 157 of the CrPC. It is trite law that a delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution case," the bench said.

The court also noted that the high court, in its reasoning, takes an exception on the minor discrepancies regarding the place and time of recording the statement under Section 161 CrPC of prosecution witnesses.

"Considering the efflux of time of more than 4-6 years between the date of occurrence and recording of court testimony, these issues are at best superficial and peripheral and would not warrant disregarding the prosecution case. The questions posed to the witnesses were more in the nature of a memory test rather than questions posed to test the truthfulness and credibility of their core testimony," the court said.

The court also emphasised that statements under Section 161 CrPC are per se not evidence in the court. 

The CBI relied upon telephonic calls and the fax message to fortify the charge of conspiracy, but the court found those were not sufficient to implicate the accused persons – Suraj Bhan Singh, Mukesh Singh, Lallan Singh and Captain Sunil Singh (since deceased), on the charge of criminal conspiracy.

Given the discrepancy in their presence in the testimony of eyewitnesses, the court granted them the benefit of doubt.

In the case, the bench noted that the fardbeyan, being the first written account made immediately after the incident, was unexceptionable. 

"Once the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is proven, their testimony, if credible and truthful, should not be dismissed solely based on non-compliance with hospital and prison protocols," the bench said.  

The reasoning given by the high court to disregard and doubt the eyewitness account of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), on the premise that he ought to have been the informant because he is the brother-in-law of Brij Bihari Prasad and was present at the hospital at the time of occurrence, is conjectural and unfounded, the court said. 

"This fact cannot ipso facto lead to the disavowal of his testimony. Such a presumption imposes a rigid formula for determining who should be an informant, which the law does not envision...Any person can be an informant of a case, and the police may also register a case on their own. The rationale of the High Court for dismissing the testimony of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) is fundamentally flawed," it said.

The court noted that yet another reason for rejecting his testimony stemmed from contradictions about the presence of Rajan Tiwari (A-9) as an assailant at the hospital.

In his police statement, Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) identified Rajan Tiwari (A-9) as being at the hospital, but in his court testimony, he stated that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was not present. 

"In our considered view, this contradiction does not weaken Paras Nath Chaudhury’s (PW-1) account of witnessing Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) commit the offence. Indian law does not recognise the doctrine – falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," the bench said.

The court said that in cases where a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinise the rest of the evidence, sifting the grain from the chaff. 

"The reliable evidence can be relied upon especially when the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact.The court must be diligent in separating truth from falsehood. Only in exceptional circumstances, when truth and falsehood are so inextricably connected as to make it indistinguishable, should the entire body of evidence be discarded," the bench said. 

The high court had rejected the testimony of a witness owing to his criminal background. The apex court, however, said the criminal background of a witness necessitates that the courts approach their evidence with caution. 

"The testimony of a witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene of the offence. In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, the testimony of members from either side is admissible and relevant. If the court is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness of such testimony, it may be considered," the bench said.

The bench said that courts typically assess the broader context to determine if there is sufficient corroboration, as long as there are no valid reasons to discredit the evidence. 

"The crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and whether their testimony is credible. If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be relied upon. Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of criminal background," the bench said. 

The court said that the same principles equally apply when the court examines the statement of a witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 

Case Title: Rama Devi Vs The State of Bihar And Others