Supreme Court flags identical accounts by eyewitnesses in murder 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 which had come to the accused's house and that the injuries were caused in a scuffle by residents of the locality who had come to their rescue.

The trial court convicted 20 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The high court, however, acquitted all of them.

How did the identical eyewitness accounts affect the case?

The high court had found that the witnesses had spoken in an almost identical fashion without moving an inch away from each other. It also found that the absence of any role involving the carrying of a weapon attributed to those who were said to have held the victims appeared to have been done thoughtfully to create a show of truthfulness.

Defending the high court's judgment, counsel for the accused respondents submitted that it was humanly impossible for six witnesses, four of whom were themselves under simultaneous assault, to reproduce the same minute details regarding the names of 23 accused, the weapon carried by each, the victim held by each and the part of the body assaulted.

Also Read| No punishment less than imprisonment for life can be given for conviction u/s 302 IPC: Top Court

Such identity of narration, the counsel argued, was a mark of tutoring and not truth.

The Supreme Court agreed that such identical and stereotyped testimony in a large assembly case could indicate tutoring rather than truthful recollection.

The Bench further observed that an injured witness is generally reliable regarding the assault upon himself. However, that does not mean that his evidence automatically becomes a reliable inventory of the precise role played by each of 23 persons, particularly where the same details are recounted identically several days later.

Supreme Court flags absence of independent witnesses

Court also found the absence of independent witnesses in an assault that allegedly took place in a residential locality to be a significant failure on the part of the prosecution.

The Bench pointed out that where an occurrence takes place in a residential area and the prosecution claims that residents were present, failure to examine any independent witness, when such witnesses were material, entitles the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.

The significance of this failure becomes greater when the ocular evidence is already attended by contradictions and the prosecution relies solely on interested witnesses, Court said.

What did the Supreme Court say about injuries on accused?

The Bench also found that the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused suggested that the prosecution had failed to present the true genesis of the incident.

"The non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused in a criminal trial is a material circumstance that may lead to an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the real genesis and origin of the occurrence. Such failure casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version and may justify the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused," the Bench underscored.

Also Read| Factum of causing injury or not irrelevant for conviction under Sec 149/302 IPC case: SC

Court ultimately declined to interfere with the high court's acquittal, holding that it represented a reasonable and possible view of the evidence.

Supreme Court reiterates limited scope in appeals against acquittal

The Bench reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, an appellate court will interfere only where the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or where the view taken is so unreasonable that no two views are possible.

It said this restraint is particularly stringent under Article 136 of the Constitution, as an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

"In our considered view, the acquittal recorded by the high court is not the product of a perverse or capricious appreciation of the evidence but a reasoned conclusion resting upon the material on record. It is, at the least, a reasonable and possible view and once it is such a view, it is not liable to be interfered under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by this court. The threshold for interference is not crossed in the present case," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's judgment acquitting the accused.

Case Title: Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra And Others Etc

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: August 3, 2026

Tags: