Case at a Glance
Twenty people convicted of murder by a Washim trial court for a group assault on Holi 2014 were acquitted by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The informant and the State appealed. The Supreme Court held that the near-identical accounts of six eyewitnesses about which of 23 persons held each victim and with what weapon bore the ‘imprint of tutoring’, that the ocular account clashed with the medical evidence, and that the High Court’s acquittal was a reasonable and possible view — dismissing all twelve appeals.
On 18 March 2014 (Holi), a quarrel over a DJ at Somnath Nagar escalated into a fatal assault at Naik Nagar, Manora, in Washim district, in which one man died and three others were injured. The informant lodged FIR No. 38 of 2014 naming 21 persons.
On 10 August 2018 the trial court convicted 20 accused of murder read with Section 149 IPC and lesser offences. On 2 February 2022 the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed six appeals and acquitted all of them. The informant (Criminal Appeal Nos. 502–507 of 2023) and the State of Maharashtra (Nos. 508–513 of 2023) challenged the acquittal.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the High Court’s acquittal of all accused a reasonable and possible view on the evidence, or was it perverse enough for the Supreme Court to interfere under Article 136?
Why the Eyewitness Accounts Failed
Writing for the Bench, Justice Augustine George Masih framed the question as “whether the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the accused is a reasonable and possible view”, not whether the Supreme Court would have decided differently. Six witnesses gave near-identical accounts of which of the 23 persons held each victim and which weapon each used. The Court held that “an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather than of truthful recollection”, and distinguished an injured witness’s reliability about his own assault from reliability about the precise role of every assailant. The post-mortem showed a single 2 x 4 cm laceration on the head although four persons were said to have struck repeatedly with pipes; exaggeration might explain overstated ferocity, but not one point of impact from four weapons.
The Court also noted the trivial origin of the quarrel, the factional rivalry between related families, the absence of independent witnesses despite a crowd and nearby houses, unexplained delay in recording statements of two witnesses, discrepancies between FIR copies, mishandled case property and unexplained injuries on the accused (relying on Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 11 SC CK 0009). It found Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 05 SC CK 0055 inapplicable since the evidence was not overwhelming. Applying Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 04 SC CK 0058, it reiterated that an acquittal is disturbed only if “perverse, manifestly illegal or productive of a gross miscarriage of justice”; imperfections in the High Court’s reasoning on Section 27 recoveries did not touch its core findings.
What the Court Actually Held
- An identical, stereotyped version from several witnesses about the roles of many accused bears the imprint of tutoring and may be disbelieved.
- Where the ocular account of multiple blows by several weapons is contradicted by the medical evidence of a single injury, the conflict can be fatal to the prosecution.
- Under Article 136, the Supreme Court interferes with an acquittal only if it is perverse, manifestly illegal or causes a gross miscarriage of justice; the High Court’s view here was reasonable and possible.
- All appeals by the informant and the State were dismissed and the acquittal dated 2 February 2022 was upheld.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Mass-accused group-clash cases are common, and this judgment explains how courts test eyewitness accounts that attribute precise roles to large numbers of people.
- It restates the narrow scope for overturning an acquittal in appeal.
- It is a useful authority for the defence on tutored testimony and medical-ocular conflict.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims’ Families
- An appeal against acquittal succeeds only if the acquittal was perverse, not merely debatable.
- Prompt, independent and consistent evidence matters as much as the number of eyewitnesses.
For Counsel
- Compare witness accounts line by line; identical role attribution can indicate tutoring.
- Match each alleged blow to the post-mortem or injury report.
- Cite Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and this ruling on limits of interference with acquittal.
Key Takeaways
- More eyewitnesses do not mean stronger proof if their accounts are mechanically identical.
- Medical evidence of a single injury undercut claims of repeated blows by four persons.
- Absence of independent witnesses and factional rivalry weighed against the prosecution.
- Acquittal of all accused upheld; twelve appeals dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Supreme Court doubt the eyewitnesses?
Six witnesses gave near-identical accounts of who held each victim and with what weapon among 23 persons. The Court said such an identical, stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring.
When will the Supreme Court reverse an acquittal?
Only if the acquittal is perverse, manifestly illegal or causes a gross miscarriage of justice. If the High Court’s view is a reasonable and possible one, it will not interfere.
What was the medical-ocular conflict?
Witnesses said four persons struck the head repeatedly with pipes, but the post-mortem showed only one 2 x 4 cm laceration.
Conclusion
Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra shows that courts look beyond the number of witnesses to the quality and spontaneity of their accounts. Where testimony appears scripted and clashes with the medical record, an acquittal will stand.
Practical takeaway: In group-violence prosecutions, specific and corroborated attribution of roles — not uniform narration — is what sustains a conviction.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com