Back
Upholds Acquittal of 20 in Murder Case Citing Stereotyped Eyewitness Accounts
The has refused to interfere with the acquittal of 20 persons in a 2014 Holi-day murder case, holding that the was justified in doubting a prosecution version built on remarkably uniform eyewitness accounts. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the appeals filed by the informant-mother and the on .
The Court endorsed the High Court's view that the witnesses' near-identical descriptions of the roles played by 23 accused persons bore the clear "" rather than truthful recollection.
A Holi Dispute That Turned Fatal
The case arose from an incident on , when Avinash Chavhan went to Somnath Nagar to seek his grandmother's blessings. There, accused Janardhan (A-1) and Milind (A-22) were playing a DJ, and Avinash asked them to stop because his grandmother was unwell. A quarrel broke out, with references to the 2013 election and a threat to kill.
Later that afternoon, Avinash returned to Naik Nagar with his father Devidas (PW-10), brother Mukesh (PW-2) and cousin Ganesh (PW-13). As they alighted from their car, the prosecution alleged, a large group dragged them about 150 feet to the house of A-1 and attacked them with iron pipes, an iron bar and wooden planks. Avinash died on the spot. The three others suffered injuries, mainly to the head.
An FIR was registered on the oral complaint of Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan, Avinash's mother, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the read with . After investigation, 23 persons were chargesheeted. One accused died during trial. The trial court convicted 20 accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, also convicting them on three counts under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Two accused were acquitted.
The , however, allowed the appeals and acquitted all 20 convicted persons, prompting the informant and the State to move the .
Why the Identical Accounts Worried the Court
The
noted that six witnesses — three injured victims and three eyewitnesses — gave accounts that corresponded
"one with another, in the name of every assailant, in the weapon carried by each, in the victim held by each and in the part of the body upon which each blow is said to have fallen."
The Court observed that such perfect consistency was itself suspicious, particularly since the witnesses were differently placed during a sudden and violent assault lasting only two to three minutes.
"In a normal course, where a single occurrence involving a large number of persons is witnessed by several persons who are differently placed, and some of them themselves are under assault, it is expected and natural that the accounts which they give will ordinarily bear the marks of individual perception. Differences of detail in such a narration are the natural product of the circumstances in which the observation was made, and their presence lends assurance rather than detracting from it."
The Bench rejected the argument that injured witnesses must always be believed in minute detail, stating:
"An injured witness is a reliable witness as to the assault upon himself, however, his evidence does not, for that reason alone, become a reliable inventory of the precise part played by each of 23 persons, whom he recounted identically some days later."
The Medical Evidence That Refused to Fit
Apart from the "stereotyped" testimony, the High Court had highlighted a serious conflict between the and the medical evidence. Six witnesses said four accused, each armed with an iron pipe, beat the deceased continuously on the head. Yet the post-mortem disclosed only a single laceration, measuring 2 x 4 cm, with a fracture of the frontal bone beneath it.
Dr. Gote, the prosecution's own medical witness, admitted in cross-examination that if four persons beat a victim continuously for two to three minutes with iron pipes, and all blows landed on the same spot, the head "may have been crushed." The found it was not conjecture for the High Court to doubt that four assailants with separate weapons could produce only one point of impact.
A similar mismatch appeared in the case of injured witness Devidas, whose son and brother testified that his eyeball had come out of its socket and his teeth had been dislodged. The medical record showed his eyeball movement was normal, and the recorded no teeth at the scene. The High Court treated these as vital discrepancies, and the agreed they could not be brushed aside.
No Independent Witnesses, Unexplained Injuries
The also noted several other infirmities. The assault took place in a residential locality, and a witness admitted that 40 to 50 people had gathered, yet no was examined. The were admittedly relatives.
The Bench further observed that statements of eyewitnesses PW-9 and PW-14 were recorded only on , even though they were present when police arrived. The injured witnesses' statements were recorded between . There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay concerning PW-9 and PW-14.
The investigation also suffered from serious lapses: the carbon copy of the FIR sent to the Magistrate did not tally with the original, and the case property was initially refused by the because the lac seals were broken. It was later resealed without any record.
The Court additionally noted that injuries sustained by four accused were brought on record through defence medical evidence but remained unexplained. Relying on the principle in , the Court held that non-explanation of injuries on the accused can create doubt as to whether the true genesis of the incident was placed before the court.
A
The clarified that these were not appeals against . The trial court had convicted, but the High Court had lawfully and acquitted. The question was whether the High Court's view was reasonable and possible, not whether the would have taken a different view.
Applying the settled standard for interference with acquittals, the Court found no , , or . The judgment noted that two findings carried the acquittal — the of the fatal assault as described, and the unsafe character of identifying a large assembly through interested and .
"It is a settled principle that an identical and stereotyped version bears the
rather than of truthful recollection,"
the Court observed.
The concluded that the High Court's reasoning, though not perfect in every detail, rested on material on record and could not be disturbed under .
Final Word: Acquittal Stands
The Court dismissed both sets of appeals — Criminal Appeal Nos. 502-507 of 2023 filed by the informant and Criminal Appeal Nos. 508-513 of 2023 filed by the . The acquittal of the 20 accused persons was confirmed.
The judgment underscores that in cases resting entirely on , the prosecution must present evidence that is not only consistent but also plausible. When the testimony is too perfectly aligned, and the medical evidence tells a different story, the "" must follow.
