In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of separating truth from falsehood in criminal cases, ruling that a conviction cannot be sustained when such separation becomes impossible. Delivering its verdict on Saheb s/o Maroti Bhumre vs. The State of Maharashtra on September 18, 2024, the Court acquitted two men who had been convicted of murder in a politically charged case from 2006. The bench, led by Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar, found that the inconsistencies in witness testimonies created significant doubt, making it impossible to hold the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment underlined that in the absence of clear and reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Background of the Case:
The case involved the brutal murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare, a former village Sarpanch of Singi, Maharashtra, on April 8, 2006. According to the prosecution, Madhavrao and his family were attacked at their home by a group of individuals armed with axes and sticks, resulting in his death and injuries to nine others. The attack was allegedly driven by political rivalry, as Madhavrao had held the position of Sarpanch, leading to animosity between him and his nephews, Khemaji and Sambhaji, sons of his brothers Maroti and Deorao.
Twenty-two people were initially charged with Madhavrao’s murder. However, by the time the case reached the Additional Sessions Court, Basmathnagar, only nine of the accused were convicted under Sections 148, 302, and 324, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to imprisonment and fined. Following an appeal, the Bombay High Court acquitted six of the convicted individuals, leaving only three—Saheb s/o Maroti Bhumre, Sitaram Pandurang Gabare, and Khemaji s/o Maroti Gabare—convicted under Section 302, read with Section 149, and Section 148 of the IPC. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Saheb and Sitaram appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn their convictions.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony:
A central issue in the case was the reliability of the testimony given by Janakibai Gabare, the widow of the deceased, who was the prosecution’s key witness. The defence argued that inconsistencies between her initial complaint and her deposition at trial undermined her credibility and cast doubt on the accuracy of her identification of the attackers.
2. Lighting Conditions and Identification:
The attack occurred during a power outage, with only moonlight available to illuminate the scene. The defence questioned whether the conditions were sufficient for Janakibai to accurately identify the attackers, given the chaotic and violent nature of the incident.
3. Applicability of Section 149 IPC (Common Object):
The court also had to determine whether the group of accused had acted with a common unlawful object, as required to sustain a conviction under Section 149 IPC. The High Court had already acquitted several accused on the grounds of insufficient evidence of individual participation.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence and the legal arguments presented, acquitted Saheb s/o Maroti Bhumre and Sitaram Pandurang Gabare. The Court’s decision was based largely on the unreliability of the eyewitness testimony provided by Janakibai Gabare. Justice Sanjay Kumar, who authored the judgment, noted several discrepancies in her statements.
In her initial complaint to the police, Janakibai described the attack as sudden and indiscriminate, claiming that the accused entered her home and began attacking her family. However, in her courtroom testimony, she added additional details, such as specifying which accused carried which weapon and the sequence of events. The Court found these inconsistencies problematic, particularly given the poor visibility at the time of the attack.
The Court observed:
“Though the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is a rule of caution and not a rule of law in India, an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood. Where such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction.”
The Court emphasized that the inconsistencies in Janakibai’s testimony, coupled with the fact that another key eyewitness, Annapurnabai (the deceased’s daughter-in-law), was not examined by the prosecution, raised reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellants. The Court also noted that the identification of the accused during a power outage and in the midst of a chaotic attack was highly questionable.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a common unlawful object under Section 149 IPC. The High Court had acquitted several of the accused on the grounds of insufficient evidence of participation in the attack, and the Supreme Court agreed that the remaining appellants could not be held responsible based on the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of a single witness.
Key Observations by the Court:
Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked:
“It is difficult to believe that, in the melee that ensued, any person who was under attack would be in a position to identify, clearly and with certainty, who was assaulting whom and with what weapon.”
In light of the serious gaps in the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court acquitted Saheb and Sitaram of all charges, ordering their immediate release. The Court’s decision reiterates the critical importance of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal trials and underscores that where truth and falsehood cannot be clearly separated, a conviction cannot be sustained.
Case Details:
– Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012
– Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar, Aravind Kumar
– Appellants: Saheb s/o Maroti Bhumre, Sitaram Pandurang Gabare
– Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
