Duleshwar v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Background
Following a land dispute between two families in a Chhattisgarh village, an assembly of villagers allegedly assaulted two brothers on the same day in 1998: one survived with injuries, while the other, Govind Singh, was beaten to death with lathis and a hatchet after being dragged by his legs. Of 18 people originally tried, the trial court convicted 9 and acquitted 9; the convictions were upheld by the High Court. Seven of the convicted men, including the appellant Duleshwar, appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that eyewitnesses only made vague, general accusations against "the group" without reliably identifying each individual assailant.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reiterated that, in cases with a large mob and many witnesses, courts should look for a "consistent account" from at least two credible witnesses rather than demanding every witness repeat every name, since mechanically requiring unanimous naming would be unrealistic. Reviewing the testimony afresh, the Court found the evidence against five of the seven appellants, including Duleshwar, reliable and consistent enough to sustain their murder convictions, but found the evidence against two other appellants, Khemuram and Lakhan, too weak and gave them the benefit of the doubt, acquitting them. Duleshwar's own appeal was accordingly dismissed, while the related appeal covering Khemuram and Lakhan was allowed in part.
Lesson Learnt
In mob-violence cases, courts assess each accused person's guilt individually based on the quality and consistency of eyewitness evidence specific to them, rather than convicting or acquitting an entire group collectively: vague, general testimony against "the crowd" is not automatically enough to convict every named member.