Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the importance of evaluation of credibility of the evidence before convicting an accused based on such evidences.  
• This bench delivering the judgment comprised of Justice Deepak Verma and Justice VS Sirpurkar. 

Facts 

• The case arises from a labor dispute in BPL Engineering Ltd., leading to protests, violence, and tragic deaths of two young women and injuries to others. 
• BPL, operating eight units in Bangalore, engaged numerous temporary workers, primarily women. Dissatisfied with prolonged temporary status, the employees formed a trade union, which faced opposition from BPL management. 
• Despite resistance from the management, the union was registered. Challenges by BPL management to annul the registration were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. 
• The Union demanded regularization of long-serving temporary workers, but the management did not accede to these demands, leading to protests and demonstrations. 
• Union leaders and members adopted hostile tactics when initial peaceful methods failed to achieve their objectives. 
• On 19th November, 1998, following serious protests at BPL's Basavapura Unit, an employee, Lalitha, filed a complaint, resulting in an FIR and subsequent charges against several union members. 
• To protect loyal employees, BPL sought police protection and initiated civil suits to prevent demonstrations within 100 meters of factory premises. An injunction was granted. 
• Despite legal actions, demonstrations and hunger strikes by union members persisted. 
• BPL initiated disciplinary proceedings against some union members for alleged misconduct. 
• A bus carrying loyal BPL employees was attacked by union members. Stones were thrown, kerosene was sprinkled, and the bus was set on fire, resulting in burn injuries to passengers and extensive damage to the vehicle. 
• The Circle Inspector of Ashoknagara Police Station responded to the incident, seizing evidence, recording statements, and arresting some accused. Two injured passengers, Sinija and Nagarathna, later succumbed to their injuries. 
• A charge sheet was filed against 49 accused for offences under various sections of the IPC, including murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and arson. 
• The prosecution examined 56 witnesses and presented 121 documents and material objects to support its case. The accused presented their defense with 31 witnesses and 328 documents. 
• The trial court convicted seven accused (A1, A2, A15, A25, A32, A33, and A46) for offences including murder and awarded life imprisonment with additional sentences for other charges. The remaining 42 accused were acquitted. 
• Consequently, appeal was filed by the accused against their conviction and sentences. The State of Karnataka also appealed for enhancement of sentences to the death penalty and against the acquittal of the 42 accused. 
• The High Court convicted four additional accused (A4, A8, A16, and A34) while maintaining the convictions of the trial court for others. One accused (A6) did not appeal the conviction. 
• Appeals were filed by the seven convicted by the trial court and the four additionally convicted by the High Court. No appeal was filed by A6 or the State.  

Issues Involved  

• Whether the accused persons filing the appeal are liable to be convicted for offences under Section 302, 307, 435,427,143 and 148 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)? 

Observation  

• Following were the observations made by the Court regarding the evidentiary value of the First Information Report (FIR): 
  • FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. 
  • However, the FIR can not be given a complete go-by since it can be used to corroborate the evidence of the person lodging the same 
  • The Court further cited the case of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (1990) where the Court held that as far as evidentiary value of FIR is concerned it can only be used for corroboration of it’s maker and it cannot be used as a substantial evidence. 
• The Court noted that the conviction in this case of the four accused is solely on the strength of the dying declarations of Sinija and Nagrathna. 
• While evaluating the credibility of the dying declarations the Court held that: 
  • There was no need to obtain the signatures of the persons on the statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) as the same would be prohibited by Section 162 of CrPC. 
  • The dying declaration is not in question answer form. 
  • The prosecution never thought of recording the dying declaration in the presence of the Magistrate even though the incident took place in a Metropolitan city like Bangalore where Magistrates would be available. 
• The Court further observed that in an appeal under Section 378 of CrPC before reversing the finding of acquittal the following factors should be considered: 
  • the presumption of innocence of the accused should be kept in mind;  
  • if two views of the matter are possible view favourable to the accused should be taken;  
  • the Appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of witness; and  
  • the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. However, the doubt should be reasonable and rational.  
• Keeping in mind the doubts regarding the dying declaration the Court held that the appeal filed by the four accused convicted by the High Court deserves to be allowed. 
• However, the Court convicted the five accused and upheld their conviction based on consistent and credible evidence.  
• Further, the applications under Section 91 and Section 233 of CrPC for securing additional documents and witnesses were rejected by the trial court. 
• The Supreme Court found no error or prejudice caused by this decision. 
• Thus, the following conclusions were made by way of the judgment: 
  • The convictions of A1, A2, A15, A32, and A33 were confirmed. 
  • A25 and A46 were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately if not required in other cases. 
  • The connected appeal resulted in the acquittal of A4, A8, A16, and A34, with their immediate release ordered unless required in other cases. 

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment which talks about the importance of consistency in the evidence before convicting an accused person.