The Supreme Court has set aside the life imprisonment sentence of five persons convicted in a 2010 murder case, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench observed that while the testimony of an interested or related witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground, it must be scrutinized closely, and in this case, the testimony of the deceased’s mother—the sole eyewitness—was fraught with material contradictions and lacked corroboration.
The Bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, allowed the appeals filed by the accused, overturning the concurrent findings of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Trial Court.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to July 14, 2010. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Goreylal, had gone to a pond to take a bath when he was assaulted by a group of persons. The informant, Parasbai (PW-4), who is the mother of the deceased, stated that she was cooking food when her granddaughter, Indu Bai, informed her that persons belonging to the Teli caste were assaulting her father.
According to the prosecution, upon reaching the spot, Parasbai saw the accused persons—Sonaibai, Punimati, Punibai, Shyambai, Dayalu, Gajadhar, and Dayanidhi Sahu—assaulting her son with lathis (sticks) and stones while his hands were tied behind his back. Goreylal subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
An FIR was lodged, and the accused were charged under Sections 302 (murder) read with Section 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon) and Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court convicted the accused on September 1, 2012, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed their appeals on February 17, 2021, prompting the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants’ Submissions: Counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was based primarily on the testimony of PW-4, an interested witness, which should have been scrutinized with greater care. They contended:
- PW-4 is a “chance witness” with material contradictions in her deposition.
- The granddaughter, Indu Bai, who allegedly informed PW-4 of the assault, was not examined by the prosecution.
- Independent witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-9 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
- The medical evidence did not align with the eyewitness account.
The State’s Submissions: The Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh opposed the appeals, arguing:
- PW-4, as the mother, had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and her presence at the scene was natural.
- Dr. Chain Singh Painkara (PW-7), who conducted the post-mortem, supported the eyewitness version, stating the injuries could be caused by the recovered weapons.
- The accused had produced lathis and a stone during the investigation, further implicating them.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed examination of the evidence, focusing on the reliability of the sole eyewitness and the medical evidence.
1. Scrutiny of the Interested Witness (PW-4) The Court reiterated the legal principle regarding interested witnesses: “It is a well-settled law that merely because the witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded. Further, deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely.”
Upon close scrutiny, the Court found “material contradictions” in PW-4’s testimony. The Bench noted that while PW-4 claimed to have seen the assault, in her cross-examination she admitted that “when she reached at the place, the accused persons were standing there and Goreylal was injured.” She further admitted she could not identify which accused used which weapon.
2. Non-Examination of Material Witness The Court highlighted a significant gap in the prosecution’s case regarding the non-examination of Indu Bai, the granddaughter who first alerted the informant. The Court observed: “It is pertinent to note that the granddaughter of the informant has not been examined by the prosecution.”
3. Hostile Independent Witnesses The Court observed that independent witnesses, including PW-1 (Ram Gulal), PW-2 (Sarpanch), and PW-3, had turned hostile. PW-1 specifically stated he had not seen the incident. PW-2 and PW-3 denied witnessing any seizure or memorandum statements by the accused. The Court noted: “PW-2 and PW-3, the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, and therefore the recovery/production of the weapons from/by the accused persons through their memorandum of statement also cannot be believed.”
4. Inconsistency in Medical Evidence The Court found discrepancies between the medical evidence and the prosecution’s theory. The post-mortem report by PW-7 mentioned three incised wounds. The prosecution relied on the recovery of a single stone. The Court observed: “It is difficult to believe that three incise wounds have been caused by one stone… It is also pertinent to note that PW-7, the doctor, has specifically stated that one stone was shown to him which was triangular in shape. In his cross-examination, it was deposed that he has not mentioned in the query report as to which injury to the deceased has been caused by the said stone.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench held:
“Thus, simply relying upon the deposition given by PW-4, conviction cannot be recorded.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and the Trial Court. The bail bonds of the appellants, who were released on bail by the Court on July 30, 2025, were ordered to be discharged.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Punimati & Anr. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (With connected appeal)
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3647 & 3648 of 2025
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1454
- Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
