'Identical Eyewitness Accounts Bear Imprint Of Tutoring', Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of 20 Persons In Murder Case

The Supreme Court recently upheld the acquittal of twenty persons in a murder case, after finding that the conviction was based on the strikingly similar nature of the eyewitness accounts, which the Court deemed improbable given that the incident involved a large number of persons being witnessed by several individuals positioned differently.

“It is a settled principle that an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather than of truthful recollection.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while upholding the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench judgment which, had found the case to be suspicious that all eyewitnesses gave identical testimonies, despite the incident occurring in the presence of a large number of persons positioned differently. This lack of differentiation in their accounts, the Court noted, undermined the prosecution's case and warranted acquittal

“In a normal course, where a single occurrence involving a large number of persons is witnessed by several persons who are differently placed, and some of them themselves are under assault, it is expected and natural that the accounts which they give will ordinarily bear the marks of individual perception. Differences of detail in such a narration are the natural product of the circumstances in which the observation was made, and their presence lends assurance rather than detracting from it.”, the Court observed.

The Court agreed with the High Court's view that the minute and uniform attribution of roles of all the accused persons described by the eyewitness was unsafe for conviction.

“The High Court found that the witnesses had spoken in almost identical fashion without moving an inch away from each other, and that the absence of any role in the carrying of a weapon attributed to those who are said to have held the victims appeared to have been done thoughtfully so as to create a show of truthfulness…What it declined to accept as safe and correct was the minute and uniform attribution of roles of all 23 persons which was described by the witnesses. That distinction is a legitimate one.”, the Court said, endorsing the High Court's view.

Background

The prosecution's case was that the accused persons had dragged and beaten the deceased and other persons, on account of an altercation over the playing of DJ. It was alleged that the accused persons assaulted the deceased and other victims (injured witnesses) with iron pipes, an iron bar and wooden planks; some of the accused held the victims and others exhorted.

The deceased-Avinash died on the spot, leading to the registration of an FIR, wherein the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Section 149 and 120-B of IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 came to be framed by the trial court against the accused persons.

Among 23 accused persons, one died during the trial. The trial court convicted the other 20 accused persons for the offence of murder and acquitted two accused persons of all the charges.

The High Court, however, reversed the trial court's decision, and acquitted the accused persons owing to the view cited aforesaid, i.e., the tutoring of witnesses.

Aggrieved, the informant and State moved to the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal of the accused persons.

Decision

Dismissing the appeals, the judgment authored by Justice Masih justified the acquittal on several counts, one of which was the identical testimonies of the eyewitnesses about the incident, noting it to be improbable, given that their testimonies were recorded days after the occurrence of the incident.

“A correspondence as complete as the present one, extending to the description of the acts of 23 persons and even when it is given not immediately but some days after the occurrence, is of the opposite character. The High Court was entitled to regard it as a circumstance raising a serious doubt as to whether these witnesses were speaking to what they had seen or to what they had been tutored to say.”, the Court observed.

The Court rejected the Appellants argument that the testimonies of the injured witness would lend credence to the prosecution's case, noting that “an injured witness is a reliable witness as to the assault upon himself, however, his evidence does not, for that reason alone, become a reliable inventory of the precise part played by each of 23 persons, whom he recounted identically some days later.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused persons was confirmed.

Headnote

Criminal Law — Evidence — Injured Witness vs. Stereotyped/Identical Testimony — Group Assault & Constructive Liability under Section 149 IPC - Reliability of Injured Witness versus Detailed Attribution in Unlawful Assembly - The presence of an injured witness at the crime scene carries an inherent guarantee of presence and reliability regarding the assault upon himself; however, it does not automatically render their testimony a reliable inventory of the specific, minute roles and weapons attributed to each of the multiple members of a large assembly - Parrot-like / Tutored Narration - Where multiple witnesses (both injured and eye-witnesses) present a verbatim, identical, and stereotyped account—assigning distinct overt acts, weapons, and body parts assaulted across 23 accused persons without individual variation—it raises serious doubts of tutoring rather than truthful recollection - In cases involving group rivalries and constructive liability under Section 149 IPC, safe identification is foundational, and convictions cannot safely rest solely on interested and stereotyped testimony. [Paras 27- 35]

Medical Evidence vs. Ocular Evidence — Direct Conflict & Improbability - Mismatch Between Number of Blows/Assailants and Post-Mortem Findings - When the ocular version attributes continuous blows with iron pipes to the victim's head by four separate assailants over 2 to 3 minutes, but the post-mortem report reveals only a single laceration with a frontal bone fracture, and the medical expert testifies that repeated blows by four persons would have crushed the skull, the ocular account is medically improbable - Exaggeration vs. Inconsistency - Exaggeration explains overstatement of ferocity, but it cannot explain how an assault deposed to have been delivered by four assailants with separate weapons registered as a single point of impact - Such a fundamental mismatch creates reasonable doubt that goes to the root of the prosecution case. [Paras 30-33]

Criminal Jurisprudence — Defective Investigation, Unexplained Injuries on Accused & Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses - Unexplained Injuries on the Accused - Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused creates serious doubt as to whether the prosecution has presented the true genesis and origin of the incident, particularly when all prosecution witnesses are related/interested - Failure to examine independent witnesses from a residential locality where dozens of neighbours gathered, relying exclusively on related witnesses, warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution. [Paras 36 - 41]

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 136 — Scope of Interference with High Court Order of Acquittal - Scope of Appellate Restraint - The Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 with a High Court judgment of acquittal unless it is shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal, or productive of a gross miscarriage of justice. If the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused is a reasonable and possible view based on material on record, it cannot be substituted merely because another view of the evidence might be possible - While defects in investigation alone do not warrant acquittal if substantive evidence is credible, where substantive ocular testimony is itself infirm and compromised by unsealed/tampered case property and unexplained FIR discrepancies, the benefit of such investigative lapses enures to the accused. [Relied on Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh and Others v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 712; Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, 2026 INSC 735; Eknath Ganpat Aher and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 519; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; Paras 23 – 46]

Cause Title: NIRMALA BAI DEVIDAS CHAVHAN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ETC. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 779

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Wad, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Adv. Mr. Uday Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Swati Arya, Adv. Mr. Deepanshu Verma, Adv. M/s J S Wad And Co, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR