The Supreme Court on October 7, 2025, set aside the life imprisonment awarded to three men convicted of murder by the High Court. Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B. Varale observed that the prosecution’s case suffered from several inconsistencies, including doubts over the credibility of the primary eyewitness, which left the appellants entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The case arose in the year 2000, when all appellants no. 1 and no. 2 had a quarrel with the deceased’s father over digging a field. Following this, the deceased was chased by all three appellants on a motorcycle, armed with swords and a sharp edged weapon and attacked him at the house of Mukhtyar Singh, causing his death . An FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased on the same day where the police later recovered the alleged weapons based on the appellant’s disclosures about the same. All three appellants were acquitted by the appellants but the HIgh Court convicted them of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated with no reliable eye witness to oversee the attack and mere recovery of weapons did not prove their crime.The respondents argued stating that maintained that witnesses saw the attack and the weapons were recovered through the appellants’ directions, with blood on a witness’s clothes confirming the crime.
The Court observed that the primary eyewitness could not identify the appellants, while the other witnesses, including the father of the deceased were chance observers whose presence at the scene was doubtful and inconsistent and it conflicted with the ocular evidence and lacked support from any independent witnesses. The Court also relied on the principle cited in Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. vs. The King Emperor 1947 MWN CR 45 and Manjunath and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421 wherein it was established that, the appellants’ statements to the police could not be treated as confessions, as only information which led to the recovery of the weapons could be relied upon, and such statements did not prove that the crime was committed. Therefore, considering the absence of credible eyewitness and forensic evidence and limitations of the statements, the Court found that the High Court had erred in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal as there was still doubt whether the appellants actually committed the offence or not. Therefore the Court set aside the convictions of all three appellants by discharging their bail bonds, acquitted them and accordingly allowed the appeal.
