The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an accused in a 1993 murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his involvement in the incident beyond reasonable doubt because the principal eyewitnesses gave mutually contradictory and embellished versions of the occurrence.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih found that the recovery of weapons such as lathis, farsa and ballam, by itself, could not establish a connection between the accused and the crime, particularly when such articles were commonly found in rural households.
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had affirmed the conviction of the accused in connection with an incident registered as FIR. The case involved allegations under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, with the prosecution case ultimately involving the death of Gaflu following injuries sustained during the incident.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
According to the prosecution, on January 6, 1993, a group of accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and, sharing a common object, assaulted Gaflu and Bharat Singh. The prosecution alleged that the accused were armed with deadly weapons and that the incident amounted to rioting. Gaflu subsequently died from the injuries sustained in the occurrence.
A charge-sheet was presented against 11 accused persons. During the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Five accused persons—Jhallu, Karodi, Sanju, Ujju alias Ujiyar and Hannu alias Hanumat—were acquitted, while five others, including the appellant, were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC. Another accused, Prakash Pateriya, died during the course of the trial.
The State did not challenge the acquittal of the five co-accused. The convicted accused, however, preferred an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal and concurred with the Trial Court’s findings, leading to the matter reaching the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that there was no dispute that Gaflu had died as a result of the injuries suffered during the incident. The medical evidence, including the deposition of PW-14, Dr. P.D. Kargaiyan, established the fact of death and its connection with the injuries.
However, the central issue before the Supreme Court was not whether Gaflu had died, but who was responsible for the assault and whether the prosecution had reliably established the involvement of the convicted accused.
The prosecution primarily relied upon PW-6, described as an eyewitness who had himself sustained injuries during the incident, and PW-7, the wife of the deceased. While their examination-in-chief appeared to support the prosecution case, the Supreme Court found serious problems in their evidence when the testimony was tested against their cross-examination.
The Court carefully examined the testimony of PW-6 and found several circumstances that undermined his credibility.
PW-6 admitted that there had been earlier disputes between persons connected with the parties. He also admitted that Gaflu himself had previously been named as an accused in an earlier incident. Further, although the police had reached the spot while Gaflu was still alive, his statement was not recorded. The witness also made admissions concerning the presence of family members and the manner in which he himself had perceived the incident.
The Court found a particularly significant inconsistency in PW-6’s claim that he had identified the assailants and the weapons used. The witness claimed that he had become unconscious after receiving the first blow. The Supreme Court questioned how, in such circumstances, he could subsequently give a detailed account of which assailant had inflicted which blow and with what weapon.
The Court also relied upon his own admission that he had not personally witnessed his father being struck with the farsa. These circumstances, according to the Bench, substantially weakened the evidentiary value of his testimony.
The testimony of PW-7, the deceased’s wife, was similarly found unreliable.
The witness stated during her testimony that she had been at home feeding her children when she heard a commotion indicating that her husband and son had been assaulted in the field. She then ran towards the place of occurrence along with villagers. According to her own account, by the time she reached the spot, her husband had already been placed on a cot.
The Supreme Court observed that this version contradicted the claim made during examination-in-chief that she had actually witnessed the assault. The discrepancy went directly to the question of whether she was an eyewitness to the incident at all.
The Supreme Court also rejected the proposition that recovery of weapons could independently establish the accused’s involvement.
The Court noted that articles such as lathis, farsa and ballam were commonly found in rural households. Their mere recovery, without reliable evidence connecting them to the particular occurrence and the accused, could therefore not establish guilt.
The Bench further noticed that there had already been a dispute between the parties concerning land. The owner of the land cultivated by the accused had allegedly been assaulted by the complainant party shortly before the incident. In these circumstances, the Court held that the possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated could not be ruled out.
The Supreme Court also examined the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9, who were stated to have witnessed the occurrence. Their evidence was likewise found wanting after scrutiny of their cross-examination.
The Bench observed that the manner in which their evidence emerged during cross-examination created the impression that they had been introduced or “planted” by the prosecution. Consequently, their evidence could not provide the reliable corroboration required to sustain the conviction.
Another important factor considered by the Supreme Court was the inconsistent approach adopted by the Trial Court towards the accused persons.
The Court noted that the prosecution case arose from the same incident and that similar roles had been attributed to the different accused persons. Yet, on the same set of depositions, the Trial Court convicted some accused while acquitting others.
The Supreme Court observed that, if the evidence and attributed roles were substantially the same, there ought to have been a clear explanation as to why the reasoning which led to the acquittal of some co-accused was not applied to the convicted persons. The High Court, according to the Supreme Court, had failed to adequately address this aspect.
In view of the unreliable eyewitness testimony, material contradictions, the absence of convincing evidence linking the recovered weapons to the accused, the possibility of false implication arising from the prior land dispute, and the unexplained difference in treatment of similarly placed co-accused, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained.
The Bench accordingly set aside the appellant’s conviction and quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated March 8, 2018, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1272 of 1995 and 1327 of 1995.
The Supreme Court directed that if the accused was in custody, he should be released forthwith. His bail bonds, if any, were ordered to stand cancelled, and pending applications were disposed of.
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.
