1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court allowed all connected criminal appeals and set aside the conviction of multiple accused, including those charged with murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and related offences. The Court found that the trial court had erred by relying solely on the testimonies of two injured eyewitnesses despite significant inconsistencies, doubtful conduct, and absence of corroborative evidence. It held that the prosecution’s case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the injured eyewitnesses failed to reveal the names of the assailants when they first met doctors and police, and because forensic and recovery evidence was either contradictory or disbelieved by the trial court itself. All appellants were ordered to be released forthwith, subject to execution of bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Facts
The prosecution alleged that on the night of 17 August 2017, near Happy Games Zone, Nashik, the accused attacked three individuals—two injured witnesses and the deceased. According to the prosecution, one accused initiated the assault with a sickle, followed by other accused using firearms and choppers. The injured witnesses allegedly fled, later returning to see the victim lying bleeding. They transported him to a hospital where he was declared dead. The FIR was recorded at 4:30 a.m. on 18 August 2017 based on the statement of an injured witness. Postmortem indicated multiple injuries and death prior to hospital arrival. The police registered offences under IPC Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148 and related provisions. The trial court convicted several accused in 2020.
3. Issues
The High Court examined:
• Whether the conduct of the injured eyewitnesses undermined their reliability.
• Whether contradictions, recovery inconsistencies, and lack of independent corroboration cast doubt on identification of accused.
• Whether forensic and ballistic reports supported the prosecution theory.
• Whether previous enmity between parties created a possibility of false implication.
• Whether the trial court ignored material weaknesses and convicted without meeting the standard of proof required for serious offences.
4. Appellants’ arguments
The appellants argued that the conviction was unsustainable owing to major contradictions in the statements of injured eyewitnesses. They emphasized the delay in recording the FIR, despite the witnesses having been medically certified fit for statement hours earlier. They argued that police used this time to fabricate a false narrative driven by previous enmity. They submitted that the trial court itself had disbelieved the recovery of weapons, including choppers and the pistol allegedly used, and that ballistic reports were negative—there were no bullet holes in the deceased’s clothing. They argued that the panch witnesses were all friends of the deceased, compromising independence. They also contended that the failure to secure CCTV footage and the prosecution’s inability to examine critical persons such as the driver who transported the injured raised additional doubts. They relied on Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Chunthuram v State of Chhattisgarh) concerning reliance on infirm eyewitness testimony.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State contended that the testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses were credible as they had suffered actual injuries and were present at the scene. Their injuries, the prosecution argued, corroborated the narrative of simultaneous assault. The State emphasized motive arising from previous rivalry and argued that minor discrepancies could not override the consistent attribution of specific roles to the accused. The State attempted to justify the delay in recording the FIR and submitted that despite inconsistencies in recovery evidence, the eyewitness identification was sufficient to sustain conviction. It urged the High Court not to interfere with trial court findings in absence of perversity.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving life imprisonment. Injured eyewitness testimony is generally given weight; however, their evidence must still pass tests of natural conduct, corroboration, and freedom from serious inconsistencies. Here, the Court noted that both injured eyewitnesses failed to identify the assailants to doctors and police immediately, despite meeting multiple individuals during the relevant period. This omission was deemed unnatural.
The Court also highlighted that the recoveries of weapons were disbelieved; ballistic evidence did not support firearm use; and the prosecution had failed to secure CCTV footage that could have provided objective verification. The presence of previous enmity, while creating motive, also created equal risk of false implication, making credible, consistent evidence essential—which was lacking. The absence of independent panch witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s chain of proof.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court considered the Supreme Court decision in Chunthuram v State of Chhattisgarh, cited by the appellants, which held that serious infirmities in prosecution evidence require reversal of conviction, particularly where forensic and circumstantial evidence do not support the narrative. The High Court found this principle relevant because here too:
• the medical evidence and ballistic findings did not match the prosecution theory,
• the trial court had rejected recovery evidence,
• the eyewitnesses’ conduct created serious doubt.
The Court also distinguished the prosecution’s reliance on precedents involving prompt FIRs and consistent eyewitness accounts. It emphasized that the time lag in FIR, combined with rivalry, created scope for fabrication—contrary to precedents that require immediate reporting to rule out embellishment.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court devoted detailed analysis to the unnatural conduct of injured eyewitnesses, noting that although their presence and injuries were undisputed, their identification of the accused was deeply doubtful. They met medical officers and friends yet disclosed no names; they did not identify the attackers until hours later. This silence, despite claiming to know the accused personally, undermined confidence in their deposition.
Further, the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses like the vehicle owner who transported the injured. Panch witnesses were all friends of the deceased, suggesting partiality. The absence of objective evidence like CCTV—especially when public and hospital cameras were available—cast additional doubt.
Given these cumulative deficiencies, the Court held that the trial court’s conviction, based solely on two tainted eyewitness accounts, was unsafe. It ruled that the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt.
9. Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In light of unnatural conduct of injured witnesses, previous enmity, contradictory recovery evidence, absence of independent corroboration, and forensic weaknesses, the Court set aside the 2020 conviction and ordered acquittal of all accused. They were to be released immediately upon executing personal bonds as required under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Pending applications were disposed of.
10. Implications
This judgment reinforces critical principles governing criminal trials:
• Injured eyewitness testimony, though significant, cannot override glaring inconsistencies and unnatural conduct.
• Delay in FIR, especially against a backdrop of enmity, can undermine prosecution credibility.
• Independent corroboration—forensic, CCTV, or reliable recoveries—is essential in serious offences.
• Panch witnesses must be impartial, or their testimony loses probative value.
• Courts must scrutinize prosecution narratives rigorously where the possibility of false implication exists.
The ruling sets a strong precedent on evidentiary standards in cases involving group assaults and rival factions.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
Chunthuram v State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733
Held that serious infirmities in prosecution evidence, coupled with negative forensic support, require acquittal. Applied here to assess reliability of eyewitnesses and contradictions.
FAQ SECTION
1. Why did the Bombay High Court acquit the accused in this case?
Because the prosecution relied solely on two injured eyewitnesses whose conduct and statements were contradictory, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with medical and forensic findings.
2. Can a conviction be based only on injured eyewitnesses?
Yes, but only if their testimony is consistent, natural, and corroborated. Here, major inconsistencies and unnatural silence rendered their evidence unreliable.
3. Does delay in FIR affect criminal cases?
Yes. When combined with prior enmity and unexplained silence by witnesses, delay can raise doubts about fabrication or false implication.