Supreme Court Restores Murder Acquittal Holding High Court Erred in Ordering Retrial Despite Weak Eyewitness Testimony and Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence
Eyewitnesses Failed to Inspire Confidence and Dying Declarations Were Inconsistent; Supreme Court Restores Trial Court’s Acquittal in Murder Case
Facts
The case arose from the murder of one Qavi on 14 February 1988. The prosecution alleged that following an earlier altercation between one of the accused and the deceased, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. The prosecution relied upon eyewitness accounts, alleged oral dying declarations made by the deceased to his brother, father and doctor, recovery of a weapon and clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and chemical analysis reports showing the presence of human blood.
The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, acquitted all the accused. The deceased’s brother challenged the acquittal by filing a criminal revision before the Bombay High Court. After an earlier remand by the Supreme Court on the ground that the accused had not been heard as required under Section 401(2) CrPC, the High Court again remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration of the eyewitness evidence, recoveries and forensic material. Aggrieved thereby, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Court’s order of acquittal.
- Whether the eyewitness testimonies were reliable enough to sustain conviction.
- Whether the alleged oral dying declarations were credible.
- Whether recovery of the weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, together with the chemical analysis report, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The accused contended that the Trial Court had thoroughly analysed the prosecution evidence and rightly acquitted them after finding serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, contradictions regarding the alleged dying declarations, and lack of reliable corroborative evidence. It was argued that the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, could not direct a fresh trial merely because another view of the evidence was possible.
They further submitted that the alleged recoveries under Section 27 and the chemical analysis report merely showed the presence of human blood without connecting the recovered weapon to the offence. According to the appellants, the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances sufficient to overturn the acquittal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant and the State supported the High Court’s order, contending that the Trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the eyewitnesses together with the recoveries effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the chemical examination report. They argued that these circumstances, read together, justified fresh consideration by the Sessions Court.
The respondents maintained that the prosecution had established motive, participation of the accused in the assault, and subsequent recovery of incriminating articles, warranting interference with the acquittal.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court examined the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, particularly the limitation on interfering with acquittals and the requirement under Section 401(2) of granting an opportunity of hearing to the accused before passing an adverse order. The Court also discussed the interplay between Sections 372, 378, and 401 CrPC, noting that after the 2009 amendment, a victim ordinarily has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal and revision cannot ordinarily be entertained where an appellate remedy exists.
On the merits, the Court reiterated that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. Interference with an acquittal is justified only where the Trial Court’s view is manifestly unreasonable. Where two views are reasonably possible, the appellate or revisional court should not substitute its own appreciation merely because it prefers a different conclusion. The Court also observed that recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, by itself, cannot sustain conviction unless supported by other reliable incriminating evidence forming a complete chain of circumstances.
Precedent Analysis
- Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752 – Relied upon to explain that a victim has an independent statutory right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without obtaining special leave.
- Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022) 13 SCC 115 – Cited to hold that after the 2009 amendment, revision against acquittal is generally not maintainable where a statutory appeal is available to the victim.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court undertook an independent reappreciation of the evidence considering that the incident had occurred nearly four decades earlier. It found that the alleged motive was weak and unsupported by reliable evidence. The eyewitnesses were characterised as chance witnesses whose conduct appeared unnatural, particularly because none of them either shifted the injured to the hospital or promptly informed the police despite allegedly witnessing the brutal assault. Their testimonies were inconsistent with one another and failed to inspire confidence.
The Court also found the alleged oral dying declarations unreliable. The medical evidence itself was contradictory regarding whether the deceased remained conscious after sustaining multiple penetrating injuries affecting vital organs. One doctor stated that the deceased remained unconscious throughout, whereas another suggested that he was conscious. The alleged dying declarations to the father, brother and doctor therefore became highly doubtful. Equally significant was the prosecution’s failure to establish the actual scene of occurrence through seizure of blood or other physical evidence, thereby creating further doubt regarding the prosecution version.
With respect to the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the mere recovery of a weapon bearing human blood was insufficient to establish guilt in the absence of evidence linking that blood to the deceased or corroborating the eyewitness account. Since the remaining circumstances failed to form a complete chain pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the accused, the Trial Court’s acquittal represented a plausible view based on the evidence. Consequently, the High Court was not justified in directing a fresh consideration of the matter.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court’s order directing reconsideration of the evidence, and restored the Trial Court’s judgment acquitting all the accused. The Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt and that once an acquittal has been recorded, the strengthened presumption of innocence can be displaced only by compelling and reliable evidence. Recovery under Section 27, without a complete chain of incriminating circumstances, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Case Details
- Case: Khalil Pasha & Ors. v. Abdul Rasheed & Anr.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1115 of 2023
- Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Date: 28 July 2026
- Result: Appeal allowed; Bombay High Court’s order set aside; Trial Court’s acquittal restored.
