In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has acquitted four people who had been serving life sentences for a murder committed 35 years ago. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the place of the incident and that the testimonies of the “so-called eyewitnesses” were riddled with contradictions and inherent implausibilities, making it unsafe to uphold the convictions.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta utilized their constitutional authority under Article 142 to extend the benefit of acquittal to three other co-accused who had not appealed their convictions. This decision overturns the earlier verdicts of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the trial court that had upheld the convictions.
The apex court noted that the initial First Information Report (FIR) mentioned the demolition of a hut near a witness’s residence. However, another prosecution witness placed the crime scene near their own house, denying any demolition. A third witness claimed the assault occurred in a field, highlighting conflicting accounts of the incident’s location and the presence of individuals at the scene. The court emphasized that such inconsistent versions cannot form a credible narrative, and the discrepancies effectively undermined the prosecution’s case.
The court stated, “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… as the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses… is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities.”
Given that the prosecution’s entire case had fallen apart, the court concluded that all four convicts were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The accused are to be released immediately unless they are required in any other case.
The original conviction by a trial court in Indore occurred in October 1999, at which time six other accused individuals were acquitted. The FIR, registered in September 1990, alleged that the accused were damaging a hutment, and an assault occurred when the informant’s son attempted to intervene. The victim later died in a hospital. The motive for the assault was reportedly political rivalry.