"‘Completely Untrustworthy and Specious’: Supreme Court Acquits Four in Murder Case, Criticises ‘Unfathomable’ Investigation Delays and ‘Dubious Oral Evidence’"
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a judgment on March 27, 2025, acquitting four individuals previously convicted for the 2009 murder of Mohan Singh in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The court set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench noted that the convictions rested solely on the oral testimonies of the deceased's family members, which the court deemed "completely untrustworthy and specious." The sentence of life imprisonment against the appellants was annulled. The court stated, "Conviction of the appellants cannot rest solely on such doubtful testimonies." Ramlal, the only accused still in custody, was ordered to be released forthwith, barring any other lawful grounds for his detention.
On the evening of November 6, 2009, Mohan Singh was allegedly attacked and killed near Chowpatty, Indore. FIR No. 458 of 2009 was registered by his father, Devisingh, at 8:30 pm at Police Station Kishanpura Ganj. The FIR stated that the incident occurred around 6:30 pm. Five individuals—Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, Abhay Singh, and Ramlal (the only person named in the FIR)—were accused of committing the murder.
The Trial Court, in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 2010, convicted all five accused and sentenced them to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Additional penalties and fines were also imposed. This judgment was later challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which acquitted Abhay Singh but upheld the convictions of the remaining four appellants in its judgment dated January 25, 2024.
The prosecution claimed that Mohan Singh had gone to Chowpatty with his nephew Abhay and friend Vijay Dongre. After Vijay was dropped off and Abhay got a haircut, Mohan Singh was allegedly attacked on their return journey. The prosecution produced twenty-five witnesses, including family members of the deceased.
Devisingh (PW-1) initially reported seeing Ramlal and an unidentified man running from the scene. However, during trial, he named all five accused and claimed to have witnessed the attack. He stated that along with his daughter-in-law Madhubala, sons Gopal and Mehar Singh, he had gone toward Chowpatty and reached the scene within 5-7 minutes. He claimed to have seen the accused hitting Mohan Singh with stones.
Madhubala (PW-4) stated that she heard a gunshot and witnessed the accused attacking her husband. She claimed Arun had a pistol and was throwing stones. Similar versions were provided by Mehar Singh (PW-6) and Gopal (PW-8).
Abhay (PW-11), who was six years old at the time of the incident, stated that Arun shot his uncle and others attacked him with stones. He claimed he reported these details to the police. However, his testimony conflicted with others on the timeline. He mentioned that they had tea for half an hour and spent another half hour at the barber’s, making it implausible that they returned by 6:30 pm when the attack allegedly occurred.
Vijay Dongre (PW-5) further contradicted the timeline, stating he left Chowpatty at 6:15-6:30 pm, indicating that Mohan Singh and Abhay could not have been attacked before then. These discrepancies, the court recorded, created serious doubts about the veracity of the statements.
The Investigating Officer, D.S. Parmar (PW-20), admitted that statements from key witnesses, including Abhay and Madhubala, were recorded 17 days after the incident. He confirmed that their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements did not contain several details later introduced during trial.
Another key piece of evidence was the recovery of a 12-bore country-made pistol from Arun. However, the post-mortem report by Dr. L.S. Verma (PW-2) initially cited a gunshot wound but later confirmed it was a stab wound. There was no bullet recovered, nor was an exit wound reported. The court stated, "the so-called recovery of the pistol from Arun does not help the prosecution."
The court found multiple inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and the timeline of events. It observed that Devisingh’s deposition before the Trial Court deviated significantly from the version recorded in the FIR. The Bench noted, "Devisingh’s version before the Trial Court was, therefore, entirely different from what he had originally stated."
The delay in recording key witness statements was deemed "unfathomable," raising further doubts. The court observed, "This delay... casts a cloud on the very veracity of their testimonies." It also recorded that the enmity between the families was admitted, which further necessitated careful scrutiny of the evidence.
Addressing the principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," the court stated that although not part of Indian jurisprudence, it must exercise caution. It observed, "Their depositions... would have to be examined very carefully, given the variance in the initial version in the F.I.R."
Regarding the forensic evidence, the court noted that the only alleged gunshot wound was later confirmed to be a stabbing injury, thereby weakening the prosecution’s claim of firearm use.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the oral testimonies were insufficient for conviction. It stated, "The appellants would invariably have to be given the benefit of doubt... as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt."
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and passed the following orders:
- The judgment dated January 25, 2024, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the judgment dated June 27, 2013, by the Trial Court were set aside.
- Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal were acquitted of all charges.
- Ramlal, the only appellant still in custody, was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
- Bail bonds and sureties furnished by other appellants were discharged.
- Any fine amounts paid by the appellants were to be refunded.
The court recorded, "All the appellants shall stand acquitted of the charged offences."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: T. R. B. Sivakumar
For the Respondent: Pashupathi Nath Razdan
Case Title: Arun v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 406
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. [@ S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5493 of 2024, 6060/2024, 8627/2024, 8628/2024]
Bench: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
[Read/Download order]
