Introduction:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when the prosecution evidence, viewed as a whole, leaves a reasonable possibility consistent with the accused’s innocence. In Ashok Upadhyay & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 917, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K. Chandran set aside the conviction of two persons for murder and acquitted them by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court found that the prosecution evidence contained significant inconsistencies concerning the circumstances of the occurrence, the conduct of the witnesses, the handling of the deceased after the incident and the investigation itself.

The appellants had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Following the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding IPC provisions are now reflected in Section 103 read with Section 3(5) of the new penal law. Their convictions had been affirmed by the Patna High Court, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

The prosecution case arose out of a dispute between two families which escalated into a violent confrontation. During the altercation, one accused was alleged to have fired a shot resulting in the death of the deceased, while another accused was alleged to have fired at other members of the family. Five persons were charge-sheeted in connection with the incident. The trial court, however, acquitted three accused and convicted the two appellants. The Patna High Court subsequently upheld their conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the reliability of the prosecution evidence and pointed to several inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses. They also questioned the manner in which the investigation had been conducted and relied upon circumstances which, according to them, created a reasonable doubt regarding their involvement in the crime.

The Supreme Court’s examination of the evidence revealed that the prosecution’s own case contained circumstances that did not comfortably fit the theory of guilt. One of the most significant circumstances concerned what happened to the deceased immediately after the alleged shooting. While some witnesses stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital, the first informant and certain eyewitnesses stated that the body was taken directly to the police station. The inquest report and the testimony of the Investigating Officer supported the latter version.

The Court found this circumstance particularly significant because the medical evidence indicated that the injury suffered by the deceased was not necessarily capable of causing instantaneous death. The doctor who conducted the postmortem stated that the deceased could have survived for approximately three to six hours after sustaining the fatal injury. Another prosecution witness had stated that she could feel the deceased’s pulse while he was being taken away from the place of occurrence. In such circumstances, the Court found it difficult to overlook the fact that the deceased was allegedly taken to the police station instead of being immediately taken to a hospital.

The judgment also considered the quality of the investigation. The Court noticed that nothing had been recovered from the alleged place of occurrence. Blood-stained clothes allegedly worn by relatives of the deceased were not seized. Despite the Investigating Officer visiting the site on the same night, no site map was prepared. More importantly, the alleged firearms used in the occurrence were never recovered.

The prosecution case substantially depended upon eyewitness testimony. However, the Court noted that most of the eyewitnesses were close relatives of the deceased. While the Court expressly reiterated that relationship by itself does not make a witness an interested witness, it held that the testimony of related witnesses requires closer scrutiny when surrounding circumstances disclose material inconsistencies or a possible “ring of falsity”.

The Court further found that significant portions of the statements of two eyewitnesses were contradicted by their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These contradictions were not merely peripheral, according to the Court, but affected the credibility of the witnesses and even raised doubts concerning their presence at the scene.

Against this evidentiary background, the Supreme Court applied the well-established principle that where the prosecution evidence gives rise to a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt. Relying upon Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the circumstances must point towards guilt in a manner that excludes a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The Court consequently concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Patna High Court primarily on the ground that the prosecution evidence was neither consistent nor sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction for murder. Their case was that the prosecution had failed to present a coherent and convincing account of the occurrence and that the contradictions appearing in the testimony of the eyewitnesses went to the root of the case.

The appellants particularly relied upon the inconsistent versions regarding the immediate treatment and movement of the deceased. According to some witnesses, the deceased was taken to the hospital, whereas other prosecution witnesses stated that the body was taken to the police station. The appellants contended that this was not a minor discrepancy because the medical evidence suggested that the deceased could have survived for several hours after the injury. If the deceased was alive after the incident, the natural course would ordinarily have been to take him to a hospital for emergency medical treatment rather than to a police station.

The appellants also questioned the credibility of witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. They pointed out that several eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and that portions of their testimony were inconsistent with their earlier statements recorded by the police. Their presence at the scene, therefore, could not be accepted without careful scrutiny.

The defence further relied upon the deficiencies in the investigation. No material was recovered from the alleged place of occurrence, despite the nature of the crime. Blood-stained clothes allegedly belonging to relatives of the deceased were not seized. No site plan or map was prepared even though the Investigating Officer had visited the location on the night of the occurrence. The weapons allegedly used by the accused were also never recovered.

The appellants argued that these lapses could not be treated as insignificant when the prosecution case itself depended heavily upon eyewitness testimony whose credibility was already under challenge. In their submission, the investigation failed to produce objective or scientific evidence capable of independently corroborating the oral testimony.

The defence also drew attention to the testimony of a defence witness who described a different altercation involving lathis and gunshots and stated that slogans of “inquilab zindabad” were being raised. The appellants contended that this evidence could not simply be discarded, particularly when the prosecution witnesses themselves gave contradictory accounts concerning the occurrence and the subsequent events.

Another significant submission concerned the acquittal of the three co-accused by the trial court. The appellants pointed out that specific overt acts had also been attributed to those persons, yet the trial court found the prosecution case insufficient against them. According to the appellants, the same evidentiary weaknesses necessarily called for greater caution before sustaining the conviction of the remaining two accused.

The State, on the other hand, sought to defend the conviction and the findings of the courts below. The prosecution case rested substantially on the eyewitness account of the occurrence. The State could contend that the incident had taken place during a sudden and violent confrontation between the two families and that minor discrepancies were natural when witnesses described a rapidly developing incident.

The State’s position could also be supported by the principle that merely because a witness is related to the deceased, the testimony cannot automatically be rejected. A close relative may in fact be more likely to be present at the place of occurrence, particularly where the incident takes place in or around the family residence. The prosecution therefore relied upon the eyewitnesses as natural witnesses rather than treating their relationship with the deceased as a reason for discarding their evidence.

The State could further maintain that investigative lapses, by themselves, should not result in an acquittal if the substantive evidence otherwise establishes guilt. The absence of recovery of the weapons or failure to prepare a site map may constitute deficiencies in investigation, but such shortcomings do not necessarily erase credible ocular evidence.

The prosecution could also rely upon the findings of the courts below, which had already examined the evidence and found the appellants guilty. The trial court had convicted the two appellants while acquitting the remaining accused, and the Patna High Court had independently affirmed the conviction. The State therefore had the benefit of concurrent findings against the appellants.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court was required to independently examine whether the evidence crossed the high threshold necessary for a criminal conviction. The issue was not whether the prosecution version was possible, but whether the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and excluded a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court ultimately found that the prosecution evidence did not inspire sufficient confidence to sustain the appellants’ conviction. The Bench carefully considered the oral testimony, medical evidence, investigation and surrounding circumstances and concluded that the cumulative effect of the deficiencies created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

A central consideration for the Court was the unexplained conduct concerning the deceased after the shooting. The prosecution witnesses were not consistent about whether the deceased was taken to the hospital or the police station. The inquest report and the Investigating Officer’s evidence demonstrated that the deceased had been taken to the police station.

The Court found this circumstance unusual. Ordinarily, where a person has suffered a serious firearm injury, the immediate priority would be to obtain medical assistance. The prosecution evidence itself contained an important medical qualification: the doctor who conducted the postmortem stated that the injury causing death could not necessarily result in instantaneous death and that the injured person could survive for three to six hours.

This medical evidence assumed importance because another prosecution witness stated that she could feel the deceased’s pulse while he was being taken away from the scene. If the deceased remained alive for some time after the shooting, the Court reasoned that the conduct of taking him to the police station rather than a hospital became a circumstance requiring explanation.

The Court did not examine this fact in isolation. Rather, it considered it along with the other inconsistencies and investigative deficiencies. The criminal justice system requires the prosecution to establish a coherent chain of circumstances and reliable evidence. When several circumstances independently cast doubt upon the prosecution version, their cumulative effect becomes important.

The Bench also considered the evidence of the defence witness. The witness described an altercation involving lathis and gunshots at a different time and referred to slogans being raised. The Court observed that this testimony could not simply be ignored because the prosecution evidence itself contained discrepancies concerning the occurrence. The defence evidence therefore acquired significance in the context of the doubts already emerging from the prosecution case.

The Court then turned to the investigation and identified several deficiencies. Nothing had been recovered from the scene of occurrence. Blood-stained clothes of the relatives of the deceased were not seized. Despite the Investigating Officer visiting the place of occurrence on the same night, no map of the scene was prepared. The weapons allegedly used by the accused were also never recovered.

None of these deficiencies was treated as automatically fatal to the prosecution. However, the Court considered them cumulatively. Where the prosecution case rests substantially upon eyewitness testimony, objective corroboration may become particularly relevant when the credibility of those witnesses is questioned. The absence of such corroboration assumes significance where other circumstances simultaneously create doubt.

The Court carefully addressed the issue of related witnesses. It reiterated that a witness does not become an “interested witness” merely because the witness is related to the deceased. This is an important principle in criminal jurisprudence. A relative can be a perfectly natural and reliable witness, and courts cannot reject testimony merely on the ground of relationship.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that relationship does not provide an automatic guarantee of truthfulness. Where circumstances disclose inconsistencies or indications of exaggeration, the testimony of related witnesses requires closer scrutiny. In the present case, the Court found that there was a “ring of falsity” in portions of the eyewitness evidence, warranting such closer examination.

The Court also observed that if the occurrence had taken place in the front yard of the house, the presence of relatives there would not necessarily make them chance witnesses. Their relationship with the deceased could therefore not be the sole reason for rejecting their evidence. However, the Court was concerned with the contradictions within their accounts and their inconsistencies with earlier statements.

The statements of two eyewitnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC contained material contradictions with their testimony before the court. The Supreme Court considered these contradictions significant because they affected the reliability of the witnesses and raised doubts concerning their presence at the place of occurrence.

The Court therefore declined to treat the discrepancies as ordinary variations arising from lapse of memory. The contradictions had to be assessed in the context of the entire prosecution case. When the accounts differed on important aspects and were further weakened by investigative lapses, the Court found that the oral testimony did not provide a sufficiently secure foundation for a conviction for murder.

The Supreme Court also considered the fact that three co-accused had already been acquitted by the trial court despite specific overt acts allegedly being attributed to them. This circumstance did not automatically establish the innocence of the appellants, but it reinforced the need to carefully examine the prosecution evidence against them rather than accepting the allegations at face value.

The Court’s ultimate reasoning was guided by the fundamental criminal-law principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to establish innocence. If the evidence leaves a reasonable possibility that the accused may not have committed the offence, the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused.

In this context, the Bench referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, a leading authority on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the requirement that circumstances must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated that where the circumstances do not lead solely to the hypothesis of guilt and a reasonable hypothesis of innocence remains, conviction cannot be sustained.

The reference to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda was significant because the Court was not merely counting individual contradictions. It was assessing whether the totality of the evidence produced a conclusion of guilt that was sufficiently certain for the purposes of criminal law.

The Bench found that the circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence did not lead exclusively towards the guilt of the appellants. Instead, there remained a reasonable possibility consistent with their innocence. The prosecution’s own evidence concerning the condition and movement of the deceased, the inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts, contradictions with earlier statements, lack of recovery, failure to prepare a site map and absence of seizure of relevant articles collectively created a substantial evidentiary doubt.

The Court consequently concluded that the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses did not inspire the confidence necessary to uphold a conviction for murder. The prosecution had not succeeded in eliminating the reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The Court therefore extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitted them. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was set aside.

The judgment is a significant reminder that criminal courts must distinguish between suspicion and proof. A serious allegation, even one involving a violent death, cannot reduce the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Equally, the fact that a trial court and a High Court have returned findings of guilt does not prevent the Supreme Court from examining whether the evidence legally satisfies the standard required for conviction.

The decision also demonstrates the importance of evaluating evidence cumulatively. A single inconsistency may not necessarily destroy a prosecution case. Likewise, an isolated investigative lapse may not justify an acquittal. But where multiple deficiencies converge upon the reliability of the prosecution story, the court must ask whether the evidence still leaves room for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The Supreme Court’s treatment of related witnesses is equally instructive. The Court rejected the simplistic proposition that relatives are inherently unreliable. Instead, it adopted a balanced approach: relationship is not disqualification, but where the testimony contains substantial inconsistencies or circumstances suggesting unreliability, closer scrutiny becomes necessary.

The ruling ultimately reinforces the presumption of innocence and the high standard applicable in criminal trials. The object of criminal adjudication is not simply to determine whether the accused could have committed the offence, but whether the prosecution has proved that the accused did commit the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In the present case, the Supreme Court found that standard had not been met. The prosecution evidence itself generated a reasonable possibility of innocence, and the Court therefore refusd to allow suspicion to take the place of proof.

Th