'Prosecution Suppressed Origin & Genesis Of Offence', Supreme Court Acquits Four Men In 1990 Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 17) acquitted four persons who were convicted in a 1990 murder case, giving them the benefit of doubt since the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence of the offence.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the convicts, after noting grave inconsistencies with respect to the place of the incident mentioned in an FIR and narrated by the eyewitnesses.

The Court observed that such suppression and inconsistency regarding the start of the incident struck at the very foundation of the prosecution's case. “Once the prosecution is found to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence, the only proper course is to grant the accused the benefit of doubt,” the Court said.

Reference was made to the cases of Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192, and Bhagwan Sahai and Another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC 2714, wherein it was emphasised that when the genesis and manner of the incident itself are doubtful, conviction cannot be sustained.

Applying the law, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed:

“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the occurrence and the place of incident with any degree of certainty. The FIR speaks of the demolition of a hut by the accused persons near the residence of Jagya (PW-3). However, Madho Singh (PW-5) shifted the crime scene to nearby his own house and denied any demolition. Puniya (PW-12) claimed that the assault occurred in the field of Gopya. Both of these witnesses (PW-5 and PW-12) have contradicted each other as well as the documentary evidence, viz. the site inspection plan (Exh. P-6). They do not acknowledge each other's presence at the crime scene. Such conflicting versions cannot co-exist within a credible narrative. The suppression of the genesis of occurrence and the shifting of the place of incident demolish the very substratum of the prosecution case.”

“we are of the firm opinion that it would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the three co-accused namely, Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima, as the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12) is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities.”, the court added.

Cause Title: KANNAIYA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv.