27 March 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction of four men – Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal – who were found guilty by the lower courts for the 2009 murder of Mohan Singh in Indore. The apex court, in its judgment, cited significant inconsistencies and embellishments in the oral evidence provided by the deceased's family members, deeming their testimonies untrustworthy and insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mohan Singh was killed on the evening of November 6, 2009. His father, Devisingh, registered an FIR, naming only Ramlal as an accused initially, while also mentioning the involvement of four other individuals: Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Abhay Singh. All five were subsequently tried and convicted by the Sessions Court, a decision that was partially upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which acquitted Abhay Singh but confirmed the convictions of the remaining four.

The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of Devisingh (the deceased's father), Madhubala (the deceased's wife), Mehar Singh (the deceased's brother), and Abhay (the deceased's nephew, who was a child witness). These witnesses provided detailed accounts of the five accused attacking Mohan Singh. However, the Supreme Court found substantial discrepancies between their initial statements in the FIR and their subsequent depositions in court.

Devisingh's initial report only mentioned seeing Ramlal and an unidentified man fleeing the scene. In contrast, his testimony in court implicated all five accused and described specific acts committed by each. Similarly, Madhubala and Mehar Singh, who were not mentioned as being present in the initial FIR, provided detailed eyewitness accounts in court, even claiming to have heard a gunshot, which Devisingh did not report.

The child witness, Abhay, also provided a graphic account, but his timeline of events contradicted the testimony of another key witness, Vijay Dongre (a friend of the deceased who was with him shortly before the incident). This raised serious doubts about the accuracy of Abhay's recollection.

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer admitted that the statements of these crucial eyewitnesses were recorded with significant delays, casting a shadow on their veracity. The Supreme Court noted that the family members admitted to having prior enmity with some of the accused, making their embellished and inconsistent testimonies even more suspect.

The prosecution also relied on the recovery of a country-made pistol from Arun. However, the post-mortem report revealed that the fatal injury, initially suspected to be a gunshot wound, was likely caused by a stabbing weapon. This undermined the significance of the pistol recovery.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the principle of "false in one thing, false in everything" is merely a rule of caution in Indian law, the significant inconsistencies and embellishments in the testimonies of the deceased's family members rendered their evidence untrustworthy. The apex court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, and the lower courts had erred in relying on such dubious oral evidence.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal were acquitted of all charges. The court also ordered the immediate release of Ramlal, who was the only appellant still in custody, and discharged the bail bonds of the other appellants. Any fines paid by them are to be refunded.

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 304., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 161., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973