Saheb S/O Maroti Bhumre & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra
Background
Twenty-two people were originally accused of murdering a man in Maharashtra; the trial court convicted nine of them. On appeal, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench acquitted six of the nine but upheld the conviction of three, including the two appellants before the Supreme Court, under Sections 302 (murder) and 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon) of the IPC. The prosecution's case rested heavily on the testimony of the deceased's wife, the sole eyewitness, whose account of events was inconsistent on several material points, including which of the many accused she could actually identify.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court closely scrutinised the eyewitness's testimony and found her statements about key facts, including the identity of the accused who first attacked her husband, to be contradictory and unreliable. While the legal maxim "false in one thing, false in everything" is not an automatic rule in Indian law, the Court held that where truth cannot be separated from falsehood in a witness's account, a conviction cannot safely rest on it. Given the shaky and uncertain evidence, and considering the appellants had already spent roughly ten years in custody, the Court extended them the benefit of doubt. Both appellants were acquitted of the murder and rioting charges, their appeal was allowed, and their bail bonds were ordered discharged with any fine paid to be refunded.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot stand on the solitary testimony of an eyewitness whose account is materially inconsistent on the facts that matter most. Courts must give the accused the benefit of doubt when the prosecution's core evidence cannot be trusted as reliable.