Supreme Court Restores Murder Conviction, Says No Injury Not Enough

The Supreme Court recently restored the conviction of two accused in a murder case, holding that an accused who holds a victim while another person shoots him at close range cannot be acquitted merely because the person holding the victim did not suffer any injury.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the act of holding the victim was a clear overt act which contributed to the common object of the unlawful assembly. It also rejected the Madhya Pradesh High Court's reasoning that accused A6 could not have held the victim during the shooting without himself sustaining injuries.

Court said this reasoning was based on mere surmise and was not supported by any expert medical evidence. It noted that the bullet had entered the victim's body and remained inside, with the pellets scattered around and inside the wound, and therefore there was no basis to assume that a person holding the victim would necessarily have suffered an injury.

Conviction restored

The case arose from an incident in which 17 persons were accused of ambushing three members of a family and killing one of them.

According to the prosecution, the deceased and the witnesses were sitting near a barn owned by PW1's family when A1, along with A8 and A9, came looking for the victim and allegedly abused and threatened them.

The victim and others then proceeded towards their house. While they were nearing the house, they were allegedly ambushed by 17 persons, including A1, A8 and A9. The deceased was targeted and shot dead.

The first information statement specifically stated that A12 had exhorted the accused to shoot everyone, while A6 and another absconding accused caught hold of PW1's brother, allowing A1 to shoot him at close range with a 12-bore gun.

The bullet struck near the left side of the victim's sternum, which was consistent with the medical report proved by the doctor who conducted the postmortem.

The Supreme Court found that the presence of A1, A6 and A12 at the scene was clearly spoken of by PW1 from the beginning. It also found that the evidence of PW1, PW10 and PW11 established their presence and the shooting in the manner narrated by them.

The Bench therefore held that the high court was not justified in acquitting A6 on the ground that he would necessarily have suffered injuries while holding the victim.

Can an accused be held liable even if he did not fire the fatal shot?

The Supreme Court also rejected the high court's reasoning that A1's mere presence with a double-barrel gun, without having fired the fatal shot, was insufficient to implicate him under Section 149 or Section 34 of the IPC [now Section 190 and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), respectively].

The Bench said that if his presence at the scene along with other accused and his possession of a double-barrel gun were established, he could be held liable on the basis of common intention or common object if he was proved to be part of the group of accused.

"His presence at the scene of occurrence along with some others with a double barrel gun if established, even if the fatal shot had not been fired by him; he can be roped in on common intention and object, if he is proved to be a part of the group of accused; constituting either an unlawful assembly under Section 149 or under Section 34 of the IPC," the Bench said.

How should courts deal with inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony?

The Supreme Court also reiterated that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, under which a witness who lies about one fact is treated as unreliable in entirety, does not apply in India.

Court said judges have to separate the "grain from the chaff" while examining evidence. Therefore, even if a witness is found to have wrongly implicated some additional persons, the reliable part of the testimony cannot automatically be discarded.

"The presence of interested witnesses does not automatically discredit the prosecution case if their presence at the scene is natural and the evidence is otherwise consistent," the Bench said.

Court also observed that it is not the number of witnesses that gives credibility to the prosecution case. Credibility has to be assessed from the testimony itself, with corroboration being relevant where the testimony is doubtful.

Thus, even if the court finds that there was an attempt to implicate persons who may not have been present, this by itself cannot result in the credible portion of the testimony being rejected.

What happened before the Supreme Court?

Three of the 17 accused were absconding and their trial was separated. Of the remaining 14 accused who faced trial, A1, A6, A12 and A13 were convicted, while the others were acquitted.

The injured brother of the deceased, who was also an eyewitness, challenged the acquittal of 10 accused. The four convicted accused also filed three appeals challenging their convictions and sentences.

The high court upheld the conviction of A1 but acquitted A6, A12 and A13. In the appeal filed by the injured victim, it also upheld the acquittal of the other accused.

The Supreme Court, however, found sufficient evidence against A6 and A12 and reversed their acquittals.

It restored the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against A6 and A12. The acquittal of A13 was sustained, and the court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal of the remaining accused.

The Bench directed A6 and A12 to surrender before the Sessions Court within two weeks to serve their sentences.

Case Title: Santosh Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: September 08, 2026