Conviction Cannot Rest Solely on Specious and Untrustworthy Testimonies: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused in 2009 Murder After 16-Year Ordeal

"The Narratives of the Witnesses Are Not Free from Suspicion and Doubt" –  SC Slams Fabricated Evidence, Faulty Investigation in Madhya Pradesh Murder Trial

 In a forceful reaffirmation of the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on March 27, 2025, acquitted four men convicted of the 2009 murder of Mohan Singh, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, embellished testimonies, and delayed witness statements. In Arun v. State of Madhya Pradesh and connected appeals, the Court declared that the High Court and Trial Court had "erred in the appreciation of this dubious oral evidence", and failure to adhere to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt necessitated the appellants' acquittal.

The gruesome incident occurred on November 6, 2009, when Mohan Singh was allegedly attacked and murdered near Chowpatty, Indore, around 6:30 PM. An FIR was lodged at 8:30 PM the same evening by his father Devisingh, naming only Ramlal as an accused. The FIR merely noted that he saw Ramlal and a man dressed in a suit and shoes fleeing the scene.  

Later, five individuals—Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, Abhay Singh, and Ramlal—were charged and tried for the murder. The Sessions Court convicted all five on June 27, 2013, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

 Upon appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on January 25, 2024, acquitted Abhay Singh, but upheld the conviction of the remaining four. Aggrieved, the four approached the Supreme Court, which set aside both the High Court and Trial Court judgments.

The Supreme Court dissected the case, exposing serious flaws in the evidentiary record, especially the unreliable and contradictory nature of family witness testimonies. The Court noted that “the oral evidence that was adduced… was clearly embellished and augmented so as to implicate and indict the five men.”  

Referring to the initial FIR, the bench observed:  “All that Devisingh had reported… was that he saw Ramlal and a man wearing a suit and shoes running away from the spot. He did not name any of the other accused.”

But by the time of the trial, the same witness gave an entirely different version, naming each of the five accused and describing their specific roles. The Court found this transformation troubling:  “Their depositions before the Trial Court, naming all the accused and attributing specific overt acts to each of them, would have to be examined very carefully, given the variance in the initial version in the FIR.”

The testimonies of Madhubala (PW-4) and Mehar Singh (PW-6), who claimed to have heard gunshots and seen the assault in vivid detail, were found to contradict Devisingh, who did not mention hearing any gunshot.  

Further weakening the prosecution's case was the child witness Abhay (PW11), who was barely six years old at the time of the incident. The Court noted the improbability of his graphic recall of events: “Abhay… gave graphic details of the accused attacking Mohan Singh… [but] his statement was recorded 17 days after the incident. The delay… casts a cloud on the very veracity of their testimonies.”

The prosecution claimed to have recovered a 12-bore country-made pistol from Arun. But the Court found that: “No bullet was recovered from the body of Mohan Singh… Dr. L.S. Verma candidly admitted that what was initially stated to be a gunshot wound was actually caused by a stabbing weapon.”

The Court concluded that the forensic findings did not support the theory of death by gunshot, rendering the pistol recovery irrelevant.  

Further undermining the prosecution was the unexplained delay in recording witness statements, with key testimonies being recorded seven to seventeen days after the incident, despite the availability of the witnesses.

  “This delay… is unfathomable… It demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the narratives of these witnesses are not free from suspicion and doubt.”

 The Court observed that while Indian law does not adopt the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, it was compelled to scrutinize such dubious testimonies with caution.

 “Conviction of the appellants cannot rest solely on such doubtful testimonies… The appellants would invariably have to be given the benefit of doubt.”  

Allowing the appeals, the Court held: “We set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 25.01.2024 and the Trial Court judgment dated 27.06.2013… All the appellants shall stand acquitted of the charged offences.”   

The Court directed the immediate release of Ramlal, who remained in custody, and ordered refund of any fine amounts paid.  

 This judgment serves as a grave reminder of the risks of relying on fabricated or delayed testimony in criminal trials. The Supreme Court’s unwavering insistence on the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and its scrutiny of suspicious witness behavior reinstates a critical safeguard in the Indian criminal justice system.  

The ruling not only provides relief to the appellants after over 16 years, but also raises serious questions about investigative integrity, judicial scrutiny in trial courts, and the need to protect the innocent from miscarriage of justice.

 “The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt… and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

 Date of Decision: March 27, 2025