Sub-title: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih affirmed the High Court’s acquittal after finding that carbon-copy testimonies pointed to witness tutoring.
Supreme Court Examines Identical Eyewitness Accounts
The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of 20 accused in a murder case. The Court found that Identical Eyewitness Accounts Tutoring raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the matter. The Bench agreed with the Bombay High Court’s assessment of the witness statements.
The Court noted that several witnesses gave almost identical accounts. They also described the specific roles of 23 accused in remarkably similar terms.
The Bench found this level of uniformity difficult to accept as genuine recollection. It held that such testimony can indicate witness tutoring.
Supreme Court Questions Stereotyped Witness Statements
The Court examined how the witnesses described the incident.
The case involved a large group of people. The eyewitnesses also viewed the incident from different positions.
The Court found it unlikely that every witness could remember the same details. This concern became stronger because the witnesses gave their statements several days after the incident.
The Bench observed that genuine eyewitnesses may remember different aspects of a chaotic incident. Exact and repeated descriptions can instead suggest that witnesses followed a prepared version.
Background Of The Murder Case
Twenty-three individuals faced prosecution for murder and related offences.
The trial court convicted the accused. It relied mainly on the prosecution’s eyewitness testimony.
The accused challenged the convictions before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The High Court examined the witness statements. It found serious concerns about their credibility.
The High Court then overturned the convictions and acquitted the accused.
Informant Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan and the State of Maharashtra challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Evaluates Witness Credibility
Justice Augustine George Masih authored the judgment.
The Supreme Court focused on the timing and content of the eyewitness statements. The witnesses gave their depositions several days after the crime.
The Court found the identical details significant. The witnesses described the exact acts attributed to 23 individuals.
The Bench questioned whether the witnesses could naturally recall such details after several days. It also considered the striking similarity between their accounts.
The Court agreed with the High Court’s approach. It held that the matching statements created a serious doubt about the prosecution’s version.
Injured Witnesses Are Not Automatically Reliable On Every Detail
The appellants argued that injured witnesses deserved greater credibility.
The Supreme Court accepted that an injured witness can provide important evidence. However, an injury does not make every part of the testimony automatically reliable.
The Court distinguished between an injured person’s account of their own assault and their description of every accused person’s actions.
The Bench found the distinction important in this case. The witnesses gave matching descriptions of the roles played by all 23 accused.
The Court therefore refused to treat their injuries as enough to overcome the concerns surrounding their statements.
Supreme Court Upholds Bombay High Court Acquittal
The Supreme Court found no legal error or perversity in the High Court’s judgment.
The Bench held that Identical Eyewitness Accounts Tutoring could reasonably raise doubts about the prosecution’s evidence.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeals filed by Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan and the State of Maharashtra.
The decision confirms the acquittal of the 20 accused persons.
