Delay On Part Of Investigating Officer In Recording Statements Unfathomable; Casts Cloud On Veracity Of Testimonies: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by four accused men challenging the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirming their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of one Mohan Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “This delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording the statements of these so-called crucial witnesses is unfathomable, given their availability and the versions given by them. It casts a cloud on the very veracity of their testimonies. Further, the discrepancies in the timelines brought out by them demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the narratives of these witnesses are not free from suspicion and doubt.”

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave represented the Appellants while AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan represented the Respondent.

Factual Premise

On the day of the alleged incident, Vijay Dongre came to visit his friend, Mohan Singh, at his village, Bhatkhadi. The fatal attack on Mohan Singh is stated to have taken place when he was returning back after dropping off his friend. In the FIR lodged by his father-Devisingh shortly after his death, it was stated that when he reached the place of the incident, he saw two persons absconding - one was Ramlal, and the other was dressed in a suit and was wearing shoes. Devisingh said that Mohan Singh was shot, his head was crushed with stones, and he had been murdered by firing a bullet into his abdomen. His homicidal death stood confirmed by the post-mortem report.

The Doctor confirmed that Mohan Singh had sustained 5 wounds. All the five men, viz., Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, Abhay Singh, and Ramlal (the last was the only one named as an accused in the F.I.R.), stood trial for the murder of Mohan Singh and other offences. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. However, by a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Abhay Singh was acquitted, while the conviction of the remaining four appellants stood confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, they approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Investigating Officer, admitted that Abhay’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded 17 days after the incident. Similarly, the statement of Madhubala (PW-4) was also recorded after 17 days and the statement of Gopal (PW-8) was recorded after 7 days. As per the Bench, this did cast a doubt on the veracity of their testimonies.

It further added, “As the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not part of Indian law and jurisprudence and is, at best, a rule of caution, the entire evidence of these witnesses need not be discarded because some of their statements are proved to be factually incorrect. However, their depositions would have to be viewed with care and caution before they are accepted and acted upon.”

The Bench also found that the enmity between the family of the deceased and some of the accused was admitted by the family members themselves. It was noticed that Devisingh had reported at the time of registration of the F.I.R. that he saw Ramlal, one of the five accused, and a man wearing a suit and shoes, who remained unknown, running away from the spot. He did not name any of the other accused but his deposition before the Trial Court was very much to the contrary, as he not only named them but also attributed specific overt acts to them.

The only other incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the recovery of a 12-bore country-made pistol from Arun, one of the appellants. However, no bullet was recovered from the body of the deceased, though there was no evidence of any exit wound. The Doctor had admitted to the effect that what was initially stated by him to be a gunshot wound was actually caused by a stabbing weapon.

“As matters stand, the entire case of the prosecution hinges only upon the oral evidence of the family members of Mohan Singh, the deceased. However, as already noted hereinbefore, their evidence is found to be completely untrustworthy and specious. Conviction of the appellants cannot rest solely on such doubtful testimonies. The Trial Court and the High Court erred in the appreciation of this dubious oral evidence and in drawing the proper inferences therefrom. The appellants would invariably have to be given the benefit of doubt in such circumstances, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt”, it said.

Finding the evidence of the family members of the deceased to be completely untrustworthy and specious, the Bench observed that the appellants deserved the benefit of the doubt as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, the Apex Court acquitted the appellants of the charged offences.

Cause Title: Arun & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 406)

Appellants: Senior Advocates Siddhartha Dave, Shikhil Suri, R.C. Mishra, AOR Pankaj Thaker, Advocates Nakul Chengappa, Shantanu Phanse, AOR Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Advocates Preet Phanse, Saurabh Jha, Vibhor Chaudhary, Ishita Ahuja, Madhu Suri, Jyoti Suri, AOR T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates Ananya Mishra, Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma

Respondent: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Gautam Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment