Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Maharashtra Murder Case

Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court Judgments ‘Identical and Stereotyped’ Eyewitness Testimony Can Raise Doubt: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal of 20 in Maharashtra Murder Case X Supreme Court flags identical accounts by eyewitnesses in murder case. In a murder case, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of 20 accused, citing identical eyewitness accounts, medical inconsistencies and other gaps in the prosecution case. The Supreme Court recently observed that where multiple eyewitnesses provide an identical and stereotyped account of a complex occurrence involving a large number of accused, particularly regarding the specific roles attributed to each, such accounts may bear the imprint of tutoring. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih observed that such uniformity can be a serious circumstance raising doubt over the credibility of the witnesses, particularly in cases involving a large assembly of accused. Court made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavan and the State of Maharashtra against a 2022 Bombay High Court judgment, which had reversed the 2018 judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed by the trial court. The high court had allowed all six appeals and acquitted 20 accused who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Why did the Supreme Court uphold the acquittal? The apex court affirmed the acquittal after finding that the medical evidence, which indicated a single injury, was inconsistent with the eyewitness account of continuous beating by multiple assailants. Also Read| Section 307 IPC: Supreme Court Explains When Assault Becomes Attempt to Murder "When the ocular version of an assault as deposed to by eyewitnesses is in direct conflict with the medical evidence and the medical expert's own testimony, it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. A criminal court cannot select one corroborated portion of evidence while ignoring material inconsistencies that undermine the core of the prosecution story," the Bench said. The incident allegedly took place on March 18, 2014, the day of the Holi festival, at about 4 pm at Naik Nagar, Manora, in Maharashtra's Washim district, within the jurisdiction of Manora Police Station. The FIR was registered on the oral report of Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan, the appellant and mother of deceased Avinash, for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307 , 147 , 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code [now Sections 103, 109, 191(2), 191(3), and 190 (IPC Section 149) of the BNS], read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. What was the prosecution's case? At about 1 pm on the day of the incident, Avinash had gone to Somnath Nagar to seek the blessings of his grandmother. There, accused Janardhan (A-1) and Milind (A-22) were playing a DJ. Avinash asked them to stop the DJ as his grandmother was unwell, which led to a quarrel. At about 4 pm, Avinash, along with his father Devidas (PW-10), brother Mukesh (PW-2) and cousin Ganesh (PW-13), returned to Naik Nagar, around 2 to 2.5 kilometres from Somnath Nagar, in a car. Also Read| Supreme Court Refuses To Restore Death Penalty, Upholds Acquittal In Murder Case As the four got down in front of their house, the accused allegedly caught hold of them and dragged them outside A-1's house, around 150 feet away. They were allegedly assaulted with iron pipes, an iron bar and wooden planks. Some accused allegedly held the victims while others exhorted. Avinash died at the spot, while PW-2, PW-10 and PW-13 sustained injuries, principally on their heads. The informant Nirmalabai (PW-19), who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from the porch of her house, named 21 persons in her report and attributed to each of them the weapon carried, the victim held and the part of the body assaulted. A charge sheet was filed against 23 accused. They denied their involvement and claimed false implication, stating that it was the complainant party

Lawyers should be aware that identical eyewitness accounts can raise doubt over their credibility, particularly in cases involving multiple accused. This ruling highlights the importance of scrutinizing witness testimonies for inconsistencies and tutoring.

Source: Original reporting via LawBeat