Supreme Court Acquits Two Men in Drainage-Dispute Murder Case; Finds Eyewitness Contradictions, Faulty Investigation and Missing Weapons Created Reasonable Doubt About Prosecution Story
Supreme Court Acquits Two Murder Convicts; Says Contradictory Eyewitness Accounts, Uncertain Crime Scene and Missing Weapons Made Prosecution Case Unreliable
Facts
The case concerned the alleged murder of a man by gunshot following a dispute between two families over blockage of a drainage channel, which had caused waterlogging in front of the deceased’s house. Five persons were accused; three were acquitted, while A1 and A2 were convicted and ultimately approached the Supreme Court.
According to the prosecution, the accused arrived at the deceased’s house while he was bathing his buffalo. A quarrel followed, during which one accused allegedly exhorted the others to kill the deceased. A2 allegedly fired at the deceased, killing him, while A1 allegedly fired towards other family members, causing injuries.
The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Their conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court.
The appellants challenged these concurrent convictions before the Supreme Court.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether the prosecution eyewitnesses were sufficiently reliable to sustain the murder convictions beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether contradictions regarding the scene of occurrence, movement of the deceased’s body and presence/injuries of alleged eyewitnesses undermined the prosecution case.
- Whether the serious deficiencies in investigation—including failure to recover the firearms, prepare a crime-scene map or secure forensic evidence—created reasonable doubt.
- Whether the medical evidence was consistent with the prosecution’s claim concerning the circumstances and immediate consequences of the shooting.
- Whether, despite direct eyewitness evidence being presented, the circumstances disclosed a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, requiring the benefit of doubt to be given to the appellants.
Appellants’ Case
The appellants challenged the reliability of the prosecution’s version by pointing to material inconsistencies among the alleged eyewitnesses.
Although several villagers had allegedly gathered at the spot, the principal eyewitnesses were close family members of the deceased. The prosecution did not produce the villagers as eyewitnesses. There were also contradictory accounts about whether the deceased’s body had been taken from the scene to the hospital or directly to the police station.
The presence of PW5 and PW6 was disputed because significant portions of their courtroom testimony—including assertions regarding injuries—were absent from their earlier Section 161 CrPC statements.
The defence also relied upon evidence suggesting an alternative account of the occurrence and highlighted the failure of the investigation to produce objective corroboration.
Prosecution/Respondent’s Case
The prosecution relied principally upon direct eyewitness testimony from members of the deceased’s family.
It alleged that the accused came to the deceased’s residence because of the drainage dispute, a quarrel occurred, and A2 shot the deceased following an exhortation by another accused. A1 was alleged to have fired upon the women and children.
The prosecution also relied upon the post-mortem evidence confirming that the deceased suffered a gunshot injury, from which distorted pellets and part of the cartridge were recovered.
Thus, the fact that the death was homicidal was not seriously in doubt. The controversy centred on whether the appellants had been proved to be the perpetrators.
Analysis of the Law
Related witnesses are not inherently unreliable
The Supreme Court clarified that witnesses cannot be branded “interested witnesses” merely because they are related to the deceased.
If an incident occurs near the family home, the presence of relatives may be entirely natural. However, where their testimony exhibits a “ring of falsity”, courts must undertake closer scrutiny before relying upon it to sustain a conviction.
Thus, relationship by itself neither disqualifies a witness nor guarantees acceptance of their testimony.
Reasonable hypothesis of innocence
The Court relied upon Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra for the proposition that where the circumstances do not lead exclusively to guilt and a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence remains available, conviction cannot follow.
Although Sharad Birdhichand Sarda concerned circumstantial evidence, the Court found the underlying principle relevant here because the supposedly direct eyewitness evidence itself was weakened by contradictions and surrounding circumstances.
Direct evidence must still inspire confidence
The mere existence of persons claiming to be eyewitnesses does not dispense with judicial scrutiny.
The Court found that although the witnesses’ narratives broadly corresponded, significant discrepancies and objective circumstances prevented the Court from placing “unflinching reliance” upon their testimony.
Precedent Analysis
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
The principal precedent expressly relied upon was Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, which recognises that where the circumstances leave open a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, a criminal conviction cannot safely be entered.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that this principle was formulated in the context of purely circumstantial evidence. However, it considered the principle relevant because the direct evidence presented in this case had become unreliable owing to material discrepancies and surrounding circumstances.
The judgment otherwise turns predominantly upon a detailed factual appreciation of the prosecution and defence evidence rather than an extensive survey of precedent.
Court’s Reasoning
Several circumstances cumulatively persuaded the Supreme Court that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
First, there was uncertainty concerning the scene of occurrence. Despite the prosecution claiming that the shooting occurred outside the deceased’s house, the Investigating Officer did not even prepare a map showing the handpump, buffalo shed, house or relevant distances. Nothing material was recovered from the alleged scene.
Second, neither the alleged gun nor pistol was recovered. The prosecution claimed that one accused possessed a licensed firearm, yet even the licence was not produced. No attempt was made to determine whether the cartridge material recovered from the deceased corresponded with the weapon allegedly accessible to the accused.
The Court went further and observed that the witnesses’ specific description of A1 as carrying a “licensed” weapon, despite merely seeing a weapon, “smacks of premeditation to frame the accused,” particularly when the investigation itself failed even to prove that the accused possessed such a licence.
Third, the medical evidence created another significant inconsistency. The doctor stated that a person suffering the fatal gunshot injury could have survived for three to six hours. Yet the deceased was taken to the police station rather than the hospital, which the Supreme Court regarded as surprising and relevant when assessing the prosecution narrative.
Fourth, the alleged injuries suffered by PW5, PW6 and others did not adequately correspond with their description of an altercation involving lathis and multiple firearm shots. The medical evidence did not substantiate several aspects of their testimony.
Finally, the Court noted that three other accused, despite specific overt acts having been attributed to them, had already been acquitted by the Trial Court, with those acquittals affirmed by the High Court.
Taken cumulatively, these circumstances prevented the Court from safely relying upon the eyewitness evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, doubtful presence of certain witnesses, deficiencies in the investigation, absence of weapon recovery, uncertainty regarding the crime scene and the medical evidence cumulatively created a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version.
The Court therefore extended the benefit of doubt to both appellants and acquitted them.
It directed that the appellants be released forthwith if in custody, unless required in another case. If they were already on bail, their bail bonds were directed to stand cancelled.
The criminal appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case: Ashok Upadhyay & Anr. v. State of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2022; 2026 INSC 971
Judge: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: 8 September 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; concurrent murder and Arms Act convictions set aside; both appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt and ordered to be released forthwith if in custody.
