The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting 20 persons who had earlier been convicted for murder and related offences arising out of a 2014 Holi-day clash in Maharashtra. 

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the High Court had taken a “reasonable and possible view” after identifying serious inconsistencies between the prosecution’s eyewitness account and the medical evidence, making interference under Article 136 of the Constitution unwarranted. 

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals filed by both the informant and the State of Maharashtra seeking restoration of the trial court’s conviction. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal could not be described as perverse or manifestly illegal. 

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

Background of the Case

The prosecution case stemmed from an incident on March 18, 2014, during Holi celebrations in Washim district, Maharashtra. According to the prosecution, a dispute first erupted when the deceased Avinash objected to loud DJ music being played near his ailing grandmother’s residence. The disagreement allegedly escalated into threats connected with local political rivalry.

Later that afternoon, when Avinash returned home with his father, brother and cousin, they were allegedly attacked by a group of accused persons armed with iron pipes, an iron bar and wooden planks. Avinash succumbed to head injuries, while the other three victims sustained injuries. An FIR was registered against 23 persons for offences including murder, attempt to murder, unlawful assembly and rioting. 

Following trial, the Sessions Court convicted 20 accused under Sections 302, 307, 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. However, the Bombay High Court reappreciated the evidence and acquitted all the convicted accused, prompting appeals before the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Assessment

The Supreme Court observed that its role was not to determine whether another view of the evidence was possible but whether the High Court’s acquittal represented a reasonable and legally sustainable appreciation of the evidence.

The Court found that the High Court had carefully examined the record and was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Identical Witness Statements Raised Serious Doubts

One of the principal reasons for affirming the acquittal was the striking similarity in the testimony of six prosecution witnesses, including three injured witnesses.

The Court noted that every witness narrated almost identical details regarding all 23 accused—the weapon allegedly carried by each accused, the victim held by each individual, and even the specific body part targeted during the assault.

According to the Bench, while injured witnesses ordinarily enjoy enhanced credibility regarding the assault on themselves, that principle does not automatically validate an identical and highly detailed attribution of roles to every member of a large unlawful assembly.

The Court observed that in naturally occurring events, different eyewitnesses ordinarily perceive incidents differently. Complete uniformity in testimony, especially when recorded several days after the incident, may reasonably suggest tutoring rather than independent recollection. 

Medical Evidence Contradicted Ocular Version

The Supreme Court also found substantial conflict between the prosecution’s eyewitness version and the medical evidence.

The prosecution alleged that four accused continuously struck the deceased’s head with iron pipes for two to three minutes. However, the post-mortem revealed only a single lacerated injury on the scalp with an underlying skull fracture.

The doctor who conducted the autopsy admitted during cross-examination that while a single injury was theoretically possible if every blow landed on exactly the same spot, repeated blows by four different persons over several minutes would ordinarily result in multiple injuries and could even crush the skull.

The Court held that this contradiction went to the root of the prosecution’s case and could not be dismissed as mere exaggeration by eyewitnesses.

Similarly, prosecution witnesses claimed that one injured victim’s eyeball had protruded from its socket and several teeth had fallen out, whereas the medical records showed normal eye movement and no corresponding injuries supporting those claims. The Court considered these discrepancies significant enough to undermine confidence in the prosecution’s narrative. 

Failure to Examine Independent Witnesses

The Bench also noted that the incident occurred in a residential locality where numerous people had gathered. Despite this, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness.

Even though the FIR itself suggested that local residents had witnessed the incident, only relatives of the deceased and injured persons were examined during trial. The Court observed that in a case already suffering from inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, the absence of independent corroboration assumed considerable importance. 

Delay in Recording Statements

Another factor considered by the Court was the unexplained delay in recording statements of certain eyewitnesses.

While statements of the injured witnesses were recorded after they were declared medically fit, no satisfactory explanation existed for delaying the statements of other eyewitnesses who were available immediately after the incident.

The Court accepted the High Court’s conclusion that such delay created scope for the witnesses to develop a common version of events. 

Investigative Lapses Strengthened Benefit of Doubt

The Supreme Court further noted several deficiencies in the investigation, including discrepancies between copies of the FIR, broken seals on seized articles before they were sent for forensic examination, and the subsequent resealing of evidence without any official record.

The Court observed that although defective investigation alone does not justify acquittal, such lapses assume significance when the substantive evidence itself is found to be unreliable. 

Injuries on Accused Remained Unexplained

The Court also attached importance to the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries suffered by several accused persons.

Medical evidence produced by the defence established that four accused had themselves received injuries during the occurrence. The Court observed that failure to explain those injuries raised legitimate doubts regarding whether the prosecution had presented the complete and truthful account of the incident.

This omission, coupled with other infirmities, further strengthened the High Court’s conclusion that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. 

Supreme Court on Scope of Interference with Acquittals

Reiterating settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Supreme Court held that once the High Court has taken a plausible and reasonable view based on the evidence, the Supreme Court would not substitute its own opinion merely because another view is possible.

The Bench observed that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and interference under Article 136 is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, manifestly illegal or results in gross miscarriage of justice.

The Court dismissed both sets of appeals and declined to restore the convictions recorded by the trial court. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Revenue Records Showing Shamilat Deh Prevail Over Private Ownership Claims: Supreme Court