Harilal Etc. vs State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Background
Two men, Harilal and Parasram, were convicted of murdering a man in 1989, based mainly on the discovery of lathis (sticks) and blood-stained clothing allegedly recovered from their homes on police information, and a chance witness who claimed to have seen the accused near the scene. There was no direct eyewitness to the actual assault, and the FIR was lodged not by anyone from the village where the assault allegedly occurred but by a chowkidar (watchman) from a neighbouring village who had not personally witnessed anything. The trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court both convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court scrutinised the prosecution's case and found it riddled with unexplained gaps: the body was found 300 feet away from the spot where the assault supposedly took place, with no explanation of how it got there; a lathi was found lying next to the body even though the story was that the assailants had walked away with their weapons; and the serologist's report could not confirm that blood on the recovered clothes and lathis was actually linked to the crime. The Court held that the evidence pointed at most to a probability that the deceased was killed by a mob for an alleged affair with a village woman, but did not convincingly establish who committed the murder or how, and the sole "chance witness" was not reliable enough on its own to sustain a conviction. Giving the accused the benefit of this reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the convictions of both the High Court and Trial Court and acquitted the appellants.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot rest on suspicious circumstances and unexplained gaps in the prosecution's story. Where the evidence leaves genuine doubt about who committed a crime and how, the accused is entitled to be acquitted, even years after being convicted by two lower courts.