Appeals against acquittal occupy a distinct and narrow field in criminal law. In Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 INSC 787, decided on 3 August 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 502–507 and 508–513 of 2023, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals by the mother of the deceased and by the State against the Bombay High Court’s acquittal of twenty persons, in a judgment that works through the recurring problems of mass-accused trials: identical eyewitness accounts, conflict between medical and ocular evidence, and a defective investigation.
The Background
On 18 March 2014, the day of Holi, a violent assault took place at Naik Nagar, Manora, in District Washim, Maharashtra. It followed a quarrel earlier that day over DJ music. One man, Avinash, died; three others were injured. Twenty-three persons were charged with murder and connected offences, with the first information report — lodged by the deceased’s mother — attributing a specific role to each accused.
The trial court convicted twenty of the accused in 2018 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. In 2022 the Bombay High Court reversed the convictions and acquitted all of them. The informant and the State of Maharashtra appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now dismissed both sets of appeals and affirmed the acquittal.
The Three Pillars of the Decision
Stereotyped testimony
Six witnesses matched each other almost word for word on which of twenty-three accused held which weapon, caught hold of which victim and struck which part of the body. The Court held that "an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather of truthful recollection" (para 27).
Medical evidence versus ocular accounts
Witnesses described four men continuously striking the deceased’s head with iron pipes; the post-mortem recorded a single laceration of 2 x 4 cm. The prosecution’s own doctor accepted that a sustained assault of that kind should have produced far graver injuries. The Court called this conflict the weightier of the two grounds carrying the acquittal (para 30), distinguishing mere exaggeration from physical impossibility.
A compromised investigation
The carbon copy of the FIR sent to the Magistrate did not match the original; seals on the case property were found broken before chemical analysis; medico-legal reports concerning injuries on the accused side were withheld; and despite a crowd of 40–50 persons, no independent witness was examined (paras 36–39).
The Standard for Disturbing an Acquittal
What the appellants urged
That the trial court had convicted on the same record, that injured eyewitnesses supported the prosecution, and that the High Court’s reversal amounted to a misreading of direct evidence of a brutal group assault.
What the Court held
Interference with an acquittal requires patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or a record on which no two reasonable views are possible (para 42). The High Court’s conclusion was "a reasoned conclusion resting upon the material on record" and a reasonable, possible view — and therefore beyond interference under Article 136 (para 46).
Why the Judgment Matters in Practice
Mass-accused prosecutions arising from sudden village or neighbourhood violence present a standing difficulty: the temptation to name every member of a rival family or faction, and to support the naming with rehearsed, uniform testimony. Nirmala Bai shows how such uniformity, intended to strengthen a case, can instead undo it. It also restates, with unusual clarity, the relationship between investigative defects and substantive evidence — the former matter most precisely when the latter is weak.
For the defence, the judgment underlines the value of rigorous cross-examination of medical witnesses and of scrutinising the paper trail of the investigation: FIR copies, station diary entries, seizure memos and the sealing of case property. For prosecuting agencies, it is a reminder that examining independent witnesses where they exist, and preserving the integrity of case property, are not formalities but the difference between a conviction that survives appeal and one that does not.
Principles at a Glance
| Issue | Principle applied |
|---|---|
| Identical accounts from multiple witnesses | Complete correspondence across witnesses suggests tutoring, not truthful recollection |
| Injured witnesses | Presence assured; but no automatic credit for minute inventories of a large assembly’s roles |
| Ocular v. medical conflict | Where ocular accounts are physically irreconcilable with medical findings, benefit goes to the accused |
| Defective investigation | Not decisive where substantive evidence is reliable; significant where it is infirm |
| Appeal against acquittal | Acquittal stands unless perverse, manifestly illegal or a gross miscarriage of justice |
The occurrence in this case predates 1 July 2024 and was therefore tried under the IPC and CrPC. For offences committed after that date, the corresponding murder and hurt provisions are found in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and appeals and revisions are governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — but the evidentiary principles restated here apply with equal force under the new codes.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Every matter turns on its own facts and record.
Frequently Asked Questions
When will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal?
Sparingly. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Court will disturb an acquittal only where it is shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal or productive of a gross miscarriage of justice — for instance, where material evidence has been misread or where no two reasonable views are possible. If the acquittal reflects a reasonable and possible view of the record, it stands even if another view could also have been taken.
Why did identical witness statements harm the prosecution?
Six witnesses gave nearly identical accounts attributing specific weapons and specific acts to each of twenty-three accused. The Court observed that so complete a correspondence, extending to the description of the acts of a large assembly, bears the imprint of tutoring rather than truthful recollection. Genuine witnesses to a sudden, chaotic assault do not produce matching inventories of roles.
Do injured witnesses not enjoy special credibility?
They do — an injured witness's presence at the scene is guaranteed by the injuries themselves, and their evidence carries inbuilt assurance. But the Court clarified that this special status validates their presence, not every detail they narrate. It does not extend to minutely cataloguing the individual roles of a large crowd of assailants in a fast-moving occurrence.
Does a defective investigation automatically lead to acquittal?
No. The Court restated the balance: defects in investigation do not by themselves entitle an accused to acquittal where the substantive evidence is reliable. But where the substantive evidence is itself infirm, investigative lapses assume significance and their benefit goes to the accused. Here, mismatched FIR copies, broken seals on case property and the absence of independent witnesses tipped that balance.