Prosecution Story Of Taking Dead Body To Police Station Suspicious : Supreme Court Acquits Two Murder Convicts

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran was hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court judgment which had upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The case arose over a dispute that led to a brawl between two families, in which one accused allegedly shot a person dead, while the other accused fired at other family members. Five persons were chargesheeted, out of which three were acquitted by the trial court and two were convicted. The conviction was also upheld by the Patna High Court.

Aggrieved by the Patna High Court's affirmation, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that while the first informant and some eyewitnesses stated that the body was taken to the police station, others claimed it was taken to the hospital. It observed that the inquest report and the Investigating Officer's testimony clearly showed that the body was taken to the police station.

“It is surprising that the body was taken to the police station while in the normal circumstances it would have been taken to the hospital. Here we again notice the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem, that the injury which led to the death of the deceased could not result in an instantaneous death and the person who sustained it, could survive for 3 to 6 hours,” the bench remarked while perusing a prosecution witness's testimony that the deceased had not died immediately and that she could feel his pulse while he was being taken away from the scene.

The Court also took note of the defence witness who claimed to have witnessed an altercation with lathis and gunshots at a different time, accompanied by the slogans of “inquilab zindabad,” and stated that this testimony could not be ignored given the discrepancies already surfacing from the eyewitnesses' own accounts.

The bench found several lapses in the investigation. It flagged that nothing was recovered from the scene of occurrence, and even the blood-stained clothes of the deceased's relatives were not seized. It noted that no map of the scene of occurrence was prepared, despite the Investigating Officer visiting the site the same night. It also noted that the alleged murder weapons were never recovered.

The Court noted that the eyewitnesses were predominantly close relatives of the deceased, and that significant portions of the testimony of two of them were contradicted by their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which renders their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful. It also noted contradictions in the accounts of other eyewitnesses, including on the basic question as to where the body was taken.

Reiterating that related witnesses cannot be called interested witnesses merely because of their relationship with the deceased, the Court held that a closer scrutiny was warranted where the circumstances revealed a “ring of falsity” in testimonies.

“Related witnesses merely for their relationship with the deceased cannot be called interested witnesses. But when, from the circumstances, as in the present case, where there is found a ring of falsity in their testimonies, a closer scrutiny is warranted. If the incident occurred at the front yard of the house, then the related witnesses are not chance witnesses and could be relied on,” the bench observed.

Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, the Court clarified that “the circumstances, as we see, do not lead solely to the hypothesis of guilt and a lingering doubt, quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances brought out by the prosecution itself, that there could be a hypothesis of innocence. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, speaks of such hypothesis of innocence, if available, restraining the court from entering a conviction.”

Holding that the discrepancies and inconsistencies did not inspire confidence in the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses, and noting that co-accused, despite specific overt acts alleged against them, had already been acquitted by the trial court, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, extending the benefit of doubt to them.

“In the totality of the circumstances, we are persuaded to give the appellants herein the benefit of doubt and, hence, we acquit them,” the bench held.

Case: Ashok Upadhyay & Anr v State of of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 917

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.; Ms Divya Roy, AOR; Ms Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.; Ms Deveshi Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr Manish Kumar, AOR; Mr Divyansh Mishra, Adv.; Mr Kumar Saurav, Adv.