Convictions Set Aside as Court Finds Eyewitness Accounts Contradictory and Genesis of Crime Suppressed

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard a criminal appeal by Kannaiya against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore which had affirmed his conviction for offences under Section 302 IPC. The appeal challenged the trial and High Court findings that four accused, including the appellant, had taken part in a fatal assault; the question before this Court was whether the prosecution had proved the genesis and place of the occurrence and whether eyewitness testimony was reliable enough to sustain convictions.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, and acquitted the appellant and the three co-accused. The Court found that material contradictions and inherent improbabilities in the testimony of the principal eyewitnesses demolished the substratum of the prosecution case and that independent corroboration was lacking. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In this background, we are of the firm opinion that it would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the three co-accused namely, Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima, as the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12) is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities. Since the entire case of the prosecution has fallen, all four convicted accused persons are entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt.” The Court further applied its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the benefit of acquittal to co-accused who had not challenged their convictions before this Court.

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 28 September 1990 in village Chak, district Indore, in which Ramesh sustained multiple sharp and blunt injuries and later died while undergoing treatment. The FIR was lodged by Gobariya (PW-2) and initially named ten accused persons for offences including attempted murder and rioting; after the death, charges under Section 302 IPC were added. At trial the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and produced medical and forensic reports; the trial Court convicted four accused (including Kannaiya) and acquitted six others. The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.

On appeal to this Court the defence argued that the prosecution case was fabricated, principal witnesses were hostile or materially inconsistent with the FIR, and that six similarly placed accused had been acquitted at trial, warranting parity. The State relied on the testimony of independent eyewitnesses Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12), the medico-legal and post-mortem evidence establishing homicidal death, and forensic opinion on seized weapons.

The Supreme Court re-appreciated evidence, noting that key witnesses materially altered the genesis and place of the incident compared to the FIR and the site inspection plan. The Court recorded that Puniya “falls within the category of a ‘wholly unreliable witness’” and that Madho Singh constituted a “partially reliable witness” whose testimony lacked independent corroboration; the Court observed contradictions about whether the assault began at a hut or in an agricultural field, discrepancies as to who witnessed and assisted the injured person, and implausibilities as to how multiple assailants armed with weapons could have acted without others intervening. The Court held that when the prosecution suppressed or altered the origin and genesis of the occurrence the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt, and accordingly acquitted the appellant and the three co-accused and ordered their release if not wanted in any other case. No interim directions were required; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2012 (2025 INSC 1246) Case Title: Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not available in judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Not available in judgment text]