New Delhi, September 18, 2024 : The Supreme Court of India acquitted two appellants, Saheb s/o Maroti Bhumre and Sitaram Pandurang Gabare , of charges of murder and rioting under Sections 148, 302, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The case involved the brutal murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare in 2006 in the village of Singi, Maharashtra, which was allegedly fueled by political rivalry. The appellants had spent over 10 years in custody before being released on bail in 2016.

Background of the Case;
The trial stemmed from an incident on April 8, 2006 , where the deceased, Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare, and his family were attacked at their residence in the village of Singi. Gabare was killed on the spot, and several family members sustained injuries. A total of 22 persons were initially accused , and nine were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in 2008.

The prosecution claimed that the attack was the result of a long-standing political feud. Gabare had previously served as the Sarpanch of the village, and this led to disputes with some of the accused, who were also his relatives. The trial court convicted nine accused under Sections 148, 302, and 324, read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to imprisonment.

Appeals and High Court Verdict;
The accused appealed the conviction to the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. In 2010, the High Court acquitted six of the nine convicted, finding insufficient evidence linking them to the injuries sustained by the victims. However, the convictions of Saheb, Sitaram, and Khemaji s/o Maroti Gabare under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC were upheld. Notably, the High Court acquitted the appellants of charges under Section 324 IPC, citing the lack of specific evidence of injury-infliction by them.

Khemaji did not appeal further, but Saheb and Sitaram approached the Supreme Court of India in 2012, seeking to overturn their convictions.

Supreme Court's Findings;
The apex court, in its judgment, expressed concern over the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The testimony of Janakibai Gabare, the widow of the deceased and the primary eyewitness, was deemed unreliable due to contradictory statements . The Court noted that her account had evolved over time, and significant discrepancies emerged between her initial FIR statement and her court deposition. For instance, in her complaint, she claimed that the accused had attacked the family without saying a word, while in her deposition, she added further details that were absent from her initial account.

Furthermore, the inconsistencies regarding the lighting conditions during the attack were highlighted by the Court. The incident occurred during a power cut, and while Janakibai claimed there was sufficient moonlight to identify the attackers, no evidence was provided to substantiate this claim. The court also raised doubts about the accuracy of her identification of the accused under such conditions.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the murder was undeniably brutal, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cited the legal principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything), underscoring that it must exercise caution in cases where witness testimony is riddled with inconsistencies.

Acquittal and Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants deserved the benefit of the doubt , especially given the contradictions in the key witness testimony and the prosecution’s failure to corroborate critical facts. Notably, the court also pointed out that the prosecution failed to examine other key witnesses , such as the deceased’s daughter-in-law, Annapurnabai, who was present at the scene according to the initial FIR.

After considering the evidence and the substantial time already served by the appellants, the Court acquitted Saheb and Sitaram of all charges under Section 148 IPC (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon) and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (murder with common intention). The Court ordered that their bail bonds be discharged and any fines paid by the appellants be refunded .

Conclusion;
The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on solid and unambiguous evidence, and it underscores the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in serious offenses such as murder. The acquittal of the two appellants, after more than a decade of imprisonment, demonstrates the Court’s caution in cases where witness testimony is contradictory or unreliable.

This case also highlights the legal principles regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the role of the courts in scrutinizing such evidence in the interest of justice.

Citation:

• Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated September 18, 2024 (2024 INSC 700).