The Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of 20 persons accused of murder, holding that the unusually identical and stereotyped accounts given by the eyewitnesses created serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. The Court observed that when several persons witness a violent incident from different positions, their individual accounts would naturally contain differences in details, perspective and recollection. Where witnesses instead provide remarkably identical descriptions of the incident and assign almost exactly the same roles to a large number of accused persons, such uniformity may indicate tutoring rather than genuine recollection. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal conviction must rest upon reliable and credible evidence and that suspiciously identical testimony can undermine the prosecution case rather than strengthen it.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih. The Supreme Court was hearing appeals challenging the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench decision, which had reversed the trial court's conviction and acquitted the accused persons. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals and confirmed the acquittal. The case, titled Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, concerned a murder arising from an altercation relating to the playing of a DJ. The judgment is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 779.
The prosecution's case arose from an incident in which the deceased, Avinash, and other persons were allegedly attacked following an altercation concerning the playing of a DJ. According to the prosecution, a large group of accused persons dragged and assaulted the deceased and other victims. The prosecution alleged that different accused persons used iron pipes, an iron bar and wooden planks during the assault. Some accused were allegedly responsible for holding the victims, while others were said to have exhorted the assailants. Avinash sustained injuries and died at the spot. The incident consequently resulted in registration of an FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings against a large number of accused.
The prosecution invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148 and 149 concerning unlawful assembly and its common object, Section 302 read with Section 149 concerning murder, Section 307 read with Section 149 concerning attempt to murder and Section 120-B concerning criminal conspiracy. A charge was also framed under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The case involved 23 accused persons in total. During the course of the trial, one accused died. The trial court ultimately convicted 20 accused persons for the offence of murder while acquitting two others of all charges. The matter subsequently reached the Bombay High Court, where the conviction was overturned and the accused were acquitted.
A central issue before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court was the extraordinary similarity between the statements of the eyewitnesses. The witnesses had attributed roles to a very large number of accused persons in almost identical language and sequence. The High Court found this uniformity difficult to accept as a natural product of independent observation. The Court considered it improbable that several eyewitnesses, positioned differently during a violent incident involving numerous individuals, would remember and describe the precise role of every accused in virtually the same manner. Instead of treating the consistency as proof of truthfulness, the High Court regarded the striking uniformity as an indication that the witnesses might have been tutored.
The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning. It emphasised that eyewitness testimony is expected to bear the marks of individual perception. Where a single occurrence involves a large number of people and is observed by multiple witnesses from different locations, the accounts should ordinarily contain differences in detail. Such differences do not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case. In fact, according to the Court, variations arising naturally from different perspectives can provide assurance that witnesses are recounting their own observations. A completely uniform account, particularly one describing the precise conduct of numerous individuals, can instead become a reason for judicial caution.
The Court explained that human beings do not normally observe and remember a complicated violent incident in an identical manner. Each witness has a different line of sight, position, level of attention and capacity to remember events. In circumstances where several persons are involved in an assault, some witnesses may notice certain actions while missing others. Some may concentrate on the person attacking them, whereas others may observe what happened to the deceased or another victim. Consequently, minor differences in their descriptions are natural. When those differences are completely absent and every witness provides the same detailed narrative, the Court is entitled to examine whether the testimony has been influenced or prepared beforehand.
The Supreme Court specifically endorsed the High Court's distinction between credible general evidence regarding the occurrence and an unsafe, minute attribution of roles to every accused. The High Court had accepted that the witnesses could have been present and could have witnessed an assault. However, it declined to accept their highly detailed and uniform accounts concerning the individual roles of all 23 accused persons. The Supreme Court considered this distinction legitimate. Thus, the Court did not necessarily treat every part of the eyewitness evidence as fabricated; rather, it concluded that the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to establish the precise participation of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
One particularly significant feature identified by the High Court and endorsed by the Supreme Court concerned the manner in which the alleged roles were assigned. The witnesses attributed specific functions to the accused, including holding victims, assaulting them with weapons and exhorting others. However, the Court noticed that the alleged persons who held the victims were not themselves attributed any role in carrying weapons. The High Court considered this arrangement suspicious because it appeared carefully structured to make the overall account appear believable. The Supreme Court agreed that such minute and uniform allocation of roles could legitimately raise doubts about whether the witnesses were recounting their actual observations or reproducing a version that had been prepared for them.
The timing of the statements also played an important role. The eyewitness accounts were not recorded immediately after the occurrence but several days later. The Supreme Court found that this circumstance made the complete correspondence between the statements even more difficult to accept. According to the Court, where different witnesses describe a complicated incident involving 23 persons after a lapse of several days, some variation would ordinarily be expected. The fact that their accounts remained almost perfectly identical, including the description of the specific acts of numerous accused persons, gave the High Court sufficient grounds to suspect tutoring. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to regard this circumstance as raising serious doubt about whether the witnesses were describing what they had actually seen.
The Court also addressed the argument that some of the witnesses were injured during the incident. Ordinarily, an injured eyewitness receives considerable evidentiary significance because the witness's presence at the scene is supported by the injuries suffered. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the status of an injured witness does not automatically make every part of that person's testimony reliable. An injured witness may be considered reliable regarding the assault suffered by that witness, but that does not mean the witness's evidence automatically becomes a completely accurate account of the precise role played by each of 23 accused persons. The Court therefore refused to treat the injured status of the witnesses as sufficient to overcome the serious concerns surrounding their identical testimony.
The Supreme Court's observation is particularly important in relation to the distinction between consistency and artificial uniformity. Consistency between witnesses can ordinarily strengthen a prosecution case, but the Court made clear that there is a point at which excessive similarity becomes suspicious. A truthful account is not expected to be mechanically identical across multiple witnesses who experienced an event independently. Natural differences in perception and memory are expected. The Court therefore treated the eyewitness evidence not merely by asking whether the witnesses agreed with one another, but by examining whether their agreement was psychologically and factually plausible in the circumstances.
The Court also applied the fundamental criminal-law principle that an accused can be convicted only when the prosecution establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where material evidence is doubtful, the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. In this case, the suspicious uniformity of the eyewitness accounts, the large number of accused persons involved, the detailed attribution of individual roles and the delay in recording statements collectively weakened the prosecution's case. The High Court had therefore been justified in finding that the evidence was unsafe for sustaining the convictions. The Supreme Court found no sufficient reason to interfere with that conclusion.
The judgment also demonstrates the Supreme Court's approach to appellate review of an acquittal. Once the High Court had examined the evidence and found serious doubts concerning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the Supreme Court did not find a compelling basis to restore the trial court's convictions. The Court examined the reasoning of the High Court and found that its assessment of the eyewitness testimony was legitimate and supported by the surrounding circumstances. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the informant and the State were dismissed and the acquittal of the accused persons was confirmed.
The ruling carries wider significance for criminal trials involving large groups of accused persons. In cases concerning unlawful assemblies, mob violence or group assaults, prosecution witnesses may be expected to identify the individual conduct of several persons. However, the Court's reasoning indicates that courts must carefully scrutinise whether such evidence reflects genuine observation or an artificially prepared narrative. The prosecution cannot secure a conviction merely by presenting several witnesses who repeat the same version. The quality, naturalness, probability and circumstances of the testimony remain crucial considerations in determining whether the evidence is trustworthy.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision in Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra and Others reinforces the principle that eyewitness testimony must be assessed realistically rather than mechanically. The Court upheld the acquittal of 20 accused persons because the prosecution witnesses gave remarkably identical accounts concerning the roles of a large number of accused persons, despite having occupied different positions during the incident and having given their statements several days later. The Court held that such complete uniformity could bear the imprint of tutoring rather than truthful independent recollection. It further clarified that although an injured witness may be reliable concerning the assault suffered by that witness, such status does not automatically establish the accuracy of a detailed account assigning specific roles to every accused. The decision ultimately underscores that criminal courts must distinguish genuine consistency from suspicious uniformity and must insist upon evidence capable of supporting guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.