A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih has upheld the acquittal of 20 individuals in a 2014 murder case, holding that identical and stereotyped witness testimony indicates tutoring rather than truthful recollection, and that significant contradictions between ocular versions and medical evidence create reasonable doubt. Dismissing appeals filed by the informant Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan and the State of Maharashtra, the apex court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s judgment setting aside the life imprisonment sentences awarded by the trial court.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on March 18, 2014, the day of the Holi festival, at Naik Nagar, Manora, in Maharashtra’s Washim district. According to the prosecution, a dispute arose around 1:00 p.m. at Somnath Nagar when the deceased, Avinash, asked accused Janardhan (A-1) and Milind (A-22) to stop playing a DJ because his grandmother was unwell. The argument escalated into a quarrel involving references to a 2013 Zilla Parishad election and a threat to kill.
Around 4:00 p.m., Avinash returned to Naik Nagar in a car with his father Devidas (PW-10), brother Mukesh (PW-2), and cousin Ganesh (PW-13). As they alighted outside their house, the accused persons allegedly surrounded them, dragged them about 150 feet to the front of A-1’s house, and assaulted them with iron pipes, an iron bar, and wooden planks. Avinash died at the spot due to a head injury, while PW-2, PW-10, and PW-13 sustained injuries, primarily to their heads.
An oral report was lodged at 5:15 p.m. by Avinash’s mother, Nirmala Bai (PW-19), who named 21 persons and attributed specific weapons, victims held, and body parts struck to each. Following investigation, charges were framed against 23 accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
The trial court convicted 20 accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, along with convictions under Sections 307, 147, and 148 IPC. On appeal, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) reversed the conviction on February 2, 2022, acquitted all 20 persons, and directed their release after concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Parties
Appealing against the acquittal, counsel for the informant and the State of Maharashtra argued that the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper legal perspective. They contended that testimony from injured witnesses carries high evidentiary value and cannot be easily discarded, relying on precedents such as Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab. They submitted that the identical statements resulted from searching cross-examinations rather than concert, and that medical evidence confirmed homicidal death caused by hard and blunt objects. They further argued, citing Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, Rammi v. State of M.P., and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, that investigative shortcomings or non-examination of additional witnesses should not displace credible ocular evidence.
Conversely, senior counsel representing the accused supported the High Court’s ruling. It was argued that it was humanly impossible for six witnesses—four of whom were being assaulted simultaneously—to give a verbatim, minute description naming 23 accused, the exact weapon carried by each, the victim held by each, and the specific body part targeted. Relying on Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, Rambilas v. State of M.P., State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar, Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh v. State of Maharashtra, and State of Punjab v. Mohri Ram, counsel argued that such complete identity of narration is a hallmark of tutoring. They also emphasized stark conflicts between the eyewitness account—which claimed four persons continuously beat the deceased’s head with iron pipes for 2 to 3 minutes—and the postmortem report, which recorded only a single 2 x 4 cm scalp laceration. Reliance was also placed on Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, State of Karnataka v. Amajappa, State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, and State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan regarding the scope of interference with acquittals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s view in acquitting the accused was a reasonable and plausible interpretation of the material on record.
1. Identical Ocular Testimony and Tutoring
The Court noted that six prosecution witnesses gave identical, itemized accounts detailing the specific role of all 23 accused. Reaffirming long-established cautions regarding stereotyped witness accounts, the Court observed:
“It is a settled principle that an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather than of truthful recollection, which is a caution long administered by this Court…”
Addressing the contention that injured witnesses stand on a higher footing, the bench clarified that while an injured witness is reliable regarding an assault upon themselves, their status does not convert their testimony into “a reliable inventory of the precise part played by each of 23 persons, whom he recounted identically some days later.”
2. Mismatch Between Medical and Ocular Evidence
The Court found a major irreconcilable conflict between the ocular version and the medical evidence. While all six witnesses claimed four accused armed with iron pipes beat the deceased continuously on the head, Dr. Gote (PW-21) found only one scalp laceration and admitted during cross-examination that such continuous beating by four persons on the same spot would likely crush the head. Rejecting the trial court’s characterization of this discrepancy as simple “exaggeration,” the Supreme Court observed:
“exaggeration explains an overstatement of the force or the ferocity of an assault. It does not explain how an assault deposed to as having been delivered by four named assailants with four separate weapons registered upon the body of the deceased as a single point of impact.”
Referring to its decision in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, the Court cited:
“Where such detailed attribution is not fully supported by medical evidence, and where independent witnesses do not support the prosecution, the court must be slow in overturning an acquittal.”
Similar contradictions were noted in the case of injured witness Devidas (PW-10), whose claim that his eyeball had popped out and teeth were dislodged was disproved by medical records showing normal eye movement and no dislodged teeth at the spot.
3. Group Rivalry and Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses
Noting that group and factional rivalries tend to rope in innocent individuals alongside the guilty (citing Eknath Ganpat Aher v. State of Maharashtra), the Court observed that nine convicted persons had no weapons attributed to them beyond holding or shouting exhortations. Furthermore, despite 40 to 50 people assembling in a residential area, the prosecution examined no independent neighbours, relying solely on relative witnesses.
4. Delayed Statements, FIR Inconsistencies, and Injuries on Accused
The bench highlighted unexplained delays in recording eyewitness statements, inconsistencies between the carbon copy and original FIR, and the failure of the prosecution to account for injuries sustained by four accused persons. Citing Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, the bench reiterated:
“Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not.”
5. Principles Governing Interference in Acquittals
Reiterating Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, Justice Masih, writing for the bench, underscored that an appellate court will interfere with an acquittal under Article 136 only where the order suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or gross injustice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment of acquittal was a reasoned and possible conclusion resting on the material on record. Finding no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, the apex court dismissed both sets of appeals and affirmed the acquittal of all accused.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra and Others Etc.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 502-507 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 508-513 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: August 03, 2026
