Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 17) acquitted four individuals convicted in a 1990 murder case from Indore district, granting them the benefit of doubt after finding that the prosecution had concealed the true origin and circumstances of the offence. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal, observing serious contradictions between the First Information Report and the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses regarding the location and manner of the incident. Holding that such inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case, the Court set aside the convictions and directed the immediate release of all four accused.

The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging a 2009 decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, which had upheld the conviction delivered by the trial court at Mhow, District Indore. The trial court had found Kannaiya and three others—Govardhan, Raja Ram, and Bhima—guilty under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine. Of these convicts, only Kannaiya pursued the matter before the Supreme Court, while the others did not appeal further.

Also Read: MP High Court Grants Maintenance to Wife Pursuing MD in Homeopathy; Says Husband Obligated to Support and Empower Her Education

As per the prosecution, on September 28, 1990, around 9:00 pm, in village Chak, the accused-appellant and nine others were allegedly damaging the “Tapra” (temporary hutment) of Jagya (PW-3). When Ramesh, son of the informant Gobariya (PW-2), intervened, the assailants purportedly diverted their attention and assaulted him. It was alleged that Govardhan was armed with a sword, the appellant with an axe, and some others with sticks, while four were unarmed. Ramesh allegedly bled profusely and fell unconscious; Madho Singh (PW-5), Ramchander (PW-4), and villagers were said to have witnessed aspects of the incident. The FIR registered on September 29, 1990 initially invoked Sections 307, 147, and 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Ramesh succumbed on October 5, 1990 at M.Y. Hospital, Indore, whereupon offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

The Investigating Officer conducted inquest and sent the body for postmortem. Dr. Ravindra Chaudhary (PW-18) recorded multiple injuries, including stitched head and facial wounds, dislocated mandible with broken teeth and bleeding, and contusions consistent with sharp and blunt-force trauma. Seizures of weapons (sword and axe) were made pursuant to disclosures under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; Dr. M.S. Pathak (PW-17) opined on the possibility of injuries being caused by these weapons; FSL analysis followed. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Six accused—Babu Lal, Gyan Singh, Birjo, Ram Swaroop, Keshar Singh, and Asha Ram—were acquitted by the trial court. The High Court dismissed the convicts’ appeal, leading to the present special leave appeal by the appellant.

The Bench quoted the principles from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras: “it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact… Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.” The Court further noted: “In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty… It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial…”

The Court observed material inconsistencies between the FIR and the testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Puniya (PW-12) and Madho Singh (PW-5). Regarding PW-12, the Court stated: “It can clearly be elicited from the evidence of Puniya (PW-12), that the incident did not take place at the hut of Jagya (PW-3) as is alleged in the FIR and rather happened in the field of Gopya. This is a very significant contradiction which has a direct bearing on the very foundation of the prosecution case…” The Court also noted: “Thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that Puniya (PW-12), falls within the category of a ‘wholly unreliable witness’.”

Assessing PW-5, the Court recorded: “Following important facts can be discerned from the evidence of witness:… PW-5 totally denied the fact that the accused persons were damaging some hut when the incident started… The witness (PW-5) emphatically denied the presence of anyone else at the crime scene while the incident was happening… [and] admitted political rivalry between the accused persons and the complainant party.” The Court stated that PW-5’s account differed materially on the genesis and place of occurrence, including reference to a house of Narsingh and a field of Bholiya not corroborated by the site plan, and stated that “in spite [of] ten assailants armed with sharp and blunt weapons… PW-5 escaped unscathed,” which created doubt about his presence.

The Court further observed the absence of any recorded source of light in the site inspection plan and recorded: “it is hard to believe that the alleged eyewitnesses (PW-5 and PW-12) could have accurately identified the particular weapon being used…” The Bench concluded that both witnesses “have tried to suppress the genesis of occurrence and also changed the crime scene and hence, their presence at the spot becomes doubtful.”

Citing precedent, the Court quoted Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan: “It is a well-settled principle of law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted… When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence… the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.” Likewise, in Bhagwan Sahai and Another v. State of Rajasthan, the Court recalled: “Once the Court came to a finding that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence… the only possible and probable course left open was to grant benefit of doubt to the appellants.”

The Bench stated: “Such conflicting versions cannot co-exist within a credible narrative. The suppression of the genesis of occurrence and the shifting of the place of incident demolish the very substratum of the prosecution case.” The Court concluded that “it would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the three co-accused…” given the contradictions and improbabilities in the testimony.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Kidnapping and Sexual Assault of Minor; Criticizes Routine Declaration of Witnesses as Hostile for Minor Inconsistencies

The Court recorded: “we are of the firm opinion that it would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the three co-accused namely, Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima, as the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12) is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities.” Proceeding to the operative part, the Bench stated: “Since the entire case of the prosecution has fallen, all four convicted accused persons are entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt. Hence, we are inclined to extend the benefit of this judgment, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 to the three co-accused, namely, Govardhan, Raja Ram, and Bhima, who have not challenged their conviction before this Court.”

“We feel persuaded to hold that the conviction of the appellant and the three co-accused… does not stand to scrutiny. Resultantly, the impugned judgments are set aside.” The Bench then directed: “Accordingly, the appellant and the said co-accused are acquitted of the charges. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv.

Case Title: Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1246

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 116 of 2012

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol; Justice Sandeep Mehta