The Supreme Court of India on Friday acquitted four men who had been convicted in a 35-year-old murder caselinked to alleged political rivalry, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish the place of the incident and that the eyewitness accounts were riddled with contradictions.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, delivering the verdict, said that the testimonies presented by the prosecution were “full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities” and that the case’s “genesis and place of occurrence” were never proven with certainty.

The apex court also invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend acquittal to three other co-accused who had not filed appeals, ensuring that all four individuals — including Govardhan, Raja Ram, and Bhima— were cleared of the charges and ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to September 1990, when a First Information Report (FIR) was filed alleging that ten people were demolishing a temporary hut near the house of one of the witnesses. When the victim — the son of the complainant — tried to intervene, he was allegedly attacked by the accused and later died while receiving treatment at a hospital in Indore.

The prosecution claimed that the motive behind the assault was political rivalry between the complainant’s family and the accused.

In October 1999, a trial court in Indore convicted four of the accused while acquitting six others. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment in April 2009, prompting one of the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.

---

Supreme Court’s Observations

In its detailed ruling, the Supreme Court pointed to serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version of events, particularly regarding where the crime occurred.

“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 bench noted.

One witness told the court that the accused had demolished a hut near his residence, while another witness claimed that the crime occurred near his own house and denied any demolition. A third witness stated that the assault happened in a field — a version that directly contradicted the other two.

“They do not acknowledge each other’s presence at the crime scene. Such conflicting versions cannot co-exist within a credible narrative,” the bench remarked.

The justices held that the suppression of the actual sequence of events and the shifting of the alleged location of the crime “demolish the very substratum of the prosecution’s case.”

---

Benefit of Doubt and Use of Article 142

Citing the collapse of the prosecution’s case, the bench said it was unsafe to uphold the conviction of any of the accused.

“In this background, 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… is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities,” the Supreme Court stated.

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for “complete justice,” the bench extended the benefit of acquittal to all four men — even those who had not independently appealed.

“Since the entire case of the prosecution has fallen, all the four convicts are entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt,” the judgment read.

The court also set aside the judgments of both the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the trial court, ordering the immediate release of the accused.

---

Legal Significance

The verdict underscores the Supreme Court’s willingness to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 in cases where upholding a conviction would result in a miscarriage of justice. The decision reiterates the importance of consistent and credible evidence in criminal prosecutions, especially when eyewitness testimonies form the backbone of the case.

Legal experts note that the ruling reinforces a long-standing judicial principle — “benefit of doubt must go to the accused” — when the prosecution fails to present a coherent and convincing narrative of the crime.

---

Conclusion

After three and a half decades of litigation, the Supreme Court’s judgment brings closure to the case, highlighting systemic issues in the handling of long-pending criminal trials and the fragility of convictions built on unreliable witness testimony.

By extending the acquittal to all co-accused through Article 142, the court ensured uniform justice, ending years of legal uncertainty for the four men originally convicted of the 1990 murder.