Can Eyewitness Testimony Alone Prove Murder? Supreme Court Acquits 2, Gives Benefit of Doubt

The Supreme Court recently acquitted two men convicted in a murder case, holding that eyewitness testimonies, even when given by family members of the deceased, cannot be relied upon when they carry a ring of falsity and are riddled with contradictions.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said that in such cases, if the prosecution fails to provide corroborative proof such as scene maps, recovery of weapons or consistent medical evidence, a reasonable doubt arises that justifies the acquittal of the accused.

Why did the Supreme Court doubt the eyewitness testimony?

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Ashok Upadhyay and another person, who were convicted in a murder case. It found significant discrepancies and a lack of corroboration in the eyewitness testimonies, which cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

"If a hypothesis of innocence is reasonably available based on the facts and circumstances brought out by the prosecution, the court must refrain from entering a conviction. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any significant failure in investigation, such as not creating a scene map or failing to seize weapons, weakens the case for conviction," the Bench said.

Court faulted the trial court and the high court for ignoring the significant gap between the alleged incident and the forensic and investigative materials.

The prosecution case was of a murder by gunshot injury. There were five accused, out of whom three were acquitted and two were convicted. Convicts Ashok Upadhyay and another person then approached the Supreme Court.

What was the prosecution's case?

A dispute arose over the blockage of a drainage channel, resulting in waterlogging in front of the deceased's house. A quarrel then erupted and the two families entered into a brawl.

According to the prosecution, A2 shot the deceased, while A1 fired at other family members, injuring them. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, while the defence examined three.

The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC [now Section 103 and 3 of the BNS, respectively] and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, along with the sentence imposed, was affirmed by the high court.

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution relied on direct evidence from eyewitnesses, all of whom were close relatives of the deceased and were staying in the same house. However, despite villagers converging at the spot, none of them was presented as an eyewitness.

The Bench also noticed that one of the defence witnesses stated that he had seen the body lying on the roadside and that there was Naxal activity in the area.

"We must consider this deposition with the factum of the sons having taken the body to the police station from the scene of occurrence. There is no reconnaissance made of the scene of occurrence by the Police, and nothing has been recovered from the scene of occurrence," the Bench said.

Court also found that the blood-stained clothes of the relatives of the deceased were not seized or sent for medical examination.

Why did the investigation weaken the prosecution case?

After noting several contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, Court said the injuries sustained did not support a finding that the persons concerned had been involved in an altercation involving an assault with lathis and multiple shots fired from a firearm.

Court also found that the eyewitnesses had not stated consistently where the dead body was taken.

"It is surprising that the body was taken to the police station while in the normal circumstances it would have been taken to the hospital. Here we again notice the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem, that the injury which led to the death of the deceased could not result in an instantaneous death and the person who sustained it, could survive for 3 to 6 hours," the Bench said.

Court also referred to the statement of a defence witness who said that at night he heard shouts and gunshots. He then aimed a torchlight towards the place from where the sound had come and saw a man lying prostrate, with a few persons carrying lathis and guns surrounding him.

The persons were shouting slogans of "Inqilab Zindabad". When the assailants turned towards him and questioned him, the witness said he felt threatened and fled from the spot.

"We narrated the testimony of this witness only to again emphasize the suspicious conduct, of the dead body having been taken to the police station and the expert opinion of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem that the person who suffered the wound, which turned fatal, could have survived for 3-6 hours," the Bench said.

Court further noted that nothing was recovered from the scene of occurrence, although the prosecution explained this by referring to heavy rains. Even the map of the scene of occurrence was not prepared by the Investigating Officer.

The weapons of assault, including the gun and pistol, were also not recovered. No attempt was made to seize them, nor was the licence produced to show that one of the accused had a licensed firearm.

The Bench said the nature of the licensed firearm could have been established from the licence. This could also have enabled forensic examination of the cartridge cover recovered from the dead body to determine whether it matched the type of gun for which the licence was issued.

"Unfortunately, the IO did nothing to produce the license and prove at least that the accused had access to such a weapon. The circumstances, as we see, do not lead solely to the hypothesis of guilt and a lingering doubt, quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances brought out by the prosecution itself, that there could be a hypothesis of innocence," the Bench said.

Benefit of doubt

In view of the discrepancies and inconsistencies, Court said it was unable to place faith in the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses.

"In that circumstance, the reasonable doubt regarding a hypothesis of innocence assumes relevance. We must emphasize that despite specific overt acts alleged on the other accused, the trial court acquitted them, affirmed by the high court. In the totality of the circumstances, we are persuaded to give the appellants herein the benefit of doubt and, hence, we acquit them," the Bench said.

Allowing the appeal, Court directed that the appellants be released from custody forthwith if they were still in custody and were not required in any other case. If they were on bail, their bail bonds would stand cancelled, it ordered.

Case Title: Ashok Upadhyay & Anr Vs The State of Bihar 

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: September 08, 2026