Mere Conjectures Or Hypothetical Inconsistencies Can’t Form Basis For Acquittal When Evidence Points To The Guilt Of Accused: SC
The Supreme Court allowed an Appeal filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read with Section 379 of CrPC against the Judgment of conviction.
The Supreme Court held that mere conjectures or hypothetical inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence points to the guilt of the accused.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read with Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against the Judgment of conviction.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “In order to render any witnesses’ testimony as unreliable, the inconsistencies shall be material ones and of such a nature that they create substantive doubts in the mind of the court towards the story or the chain of events as sought to be established by the prosecution. … Mere conjectures or hypothetical inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused.”
The Bench reiterated that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily render it unreliable, as long as the core facts remain intact.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi represented the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Appeal in this case sought to challenge the Judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby it convicted the Appellants (four accused persons) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. As per the prosecution case, the relationship between the deceased and his brother strained for nearly 20 years before the incident. There were previous complaints filed between them. The deceased worked in a mill and returned to his native village about 15 days before the incident. During this time, he sold a neem tree to a person and this sale angered the Accused No. 2 who confronted that person, claiming a share in the three and objecting to its felling. The deceased denied the said accused’s claim which resulted in a heated argument between them three days before the incident. Thereafter, on the day of the incident, the deceased and his son were returning home from their field to their shed where the deceased’s wife was milking the cattle.
After feeding the cattle, the deceased along with his son, starting walking towards their house. About 20 paces away, the accused allegedly attacked the deceased with a stick by striking him on the head and causing him to collapse. His wife rushed to his aid, shielding his body from further assault and shortly after, the other accused persons arrived at the scene. One of the accused allegedly dragged his wife away by her hair, enabling the others to assault her husband further with sticks. After the incident, attempts to transport the deceased to the Civil Hospital failed due to the unavailability of a vehicle. The deceased succumbed to his injuries that night and resultantly, a Complaint was filed and then a case was registered against the Appellants. The Trial Court acquitted them but the High Court reversed its Judgment. Hence, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone.”
The Court said that in criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized, however, being a relative does not automatically render a witness ‘interested’ or biased.
“The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy”, it added.
The Court further emphasised that a conviction can be based upon the version put forth by the eyewitness and the medical evidence must be considered only for the purpose of corroboration of the ocular evidence.
“The role of the court is to discern the truth by considering the evidence in its totality and not by isolating individual inconsistencies to discredit an entire narrative. The Trial Court erred by focusing excessively on trivial discrepancies, thereby losing sight of the broader picture and the compelling evidence against the accused”, it also noted.
The Court was of the view that a Judgment is deemed perverse when it ignores material evidence, misinterprets facts, or arrives at conclusions that do not appear to be reasonable on the basis of the evidence presented.
“This Court has repeatedly held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony should not overshadow the truth of their statements. Similarly, it has been emphasized that medical evidence should be viewed as an aid to corroborate eyewitness accounts rather than as the sole determinant of facts. The High Court adhered to these principles while assessing the evidence in this case, ensuring that its findings were grounded in sound legal reasoning”, it said.
The Court concluded that the brutal nature of the attack and the coordinated actions of the accused demonstrated clear intent to cause grievous harm, leading to the victim’s death and hence, the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused not only undermined the credibility of the justice system but also sent a troubling message about the consequences of such heinous acts.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.
Cause Title- Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 97)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, AOR Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advocates Sagar N. Pahune Patil, and Yash Prashant Sonavane.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, and Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari.
