DHRUB SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1434–1438 of 2017 — Supreme Court of India — Judgment pronounced 1 September 2026
2026 INSC 935
HEADNOTE
Criminal Trial — Murder — Appreciation of eyewitness evidence — Material inconsistencies — Scene of occurrence not satisfactorily established — Absence of recovery of cartridges and weapons — Non-examination of independent witness — Medical evidence inconsistent with ocular version — Related witnesses whose presence was doubtful — Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — Accused entitled to acquittal. [Paras 1–11]
Investigation — Failure to collect material evidence — No cartridges recovered despite allegation of indiscriminate firing — Bullet which caused death not recovered — Weapons not recovered — Blood-stained earth not sent for chemical analysis — Clothes of deceased and witnesses not seized — Independent witness not examined — Investigation found to be seriously deficient. [Paras 3–5, 8, 11]
Medical evidence — Ocular testimony — Conflict — Doctor's evidence indicated that deceased was in a sitting position when shot from close range — This was inconsistent with prosecution version that accused ambushed the party from behind while they were walking — Medical evidence materially weakened eyewitness account. [Paras 7, 10]
Motive — Mere allegation insufficient — Alleged kidnapping and political rivalry not established by evidence — Alleged principal person behind motive not arrayed as accused — Motive did not inspire confidence and could not sustain conviction. [Para 6]
Criminal jurisprudence — Burden of proof — Defective investigation — Court cannot presume guilt merely because investigation was defective or investigating officer was alleged to be collusive — Where substantive prosecution evidence itself is unreliable and there is complete lack of corroborative evidence, accused must receive benefit of reasonable doubt. [Para 11]
Held: The prosecution failed to establish the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness testimony did not inspire confidence; the investigation yielded no reliable corroborative evidence; the medical evidence contradicted the ocular version; and the alleged motive was unsubstantiated. The accused were acquitted and the appeals allowed. [Paras 11–13]
I. ANALYSIS OF FACTS
1. Prosecution case
Para 1: The prosecution alleged that the deceased, accompanied by his son, employee, nephew and another villager, was proceeding towards his fields. The accused allegedly ambushed them and opened indiscriminate fire. The deceased was shot in the back and died from the firearm injury. The accused were prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, with additional charges under Sections 147/148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against some accused.
2. Eyewitness version
Para 2: PW1, PW2 and PW7 claimed to be eyewitnesses. Their versions were broadly similar as to an ambush and firing but differed as to which accused fired the fatal shot. PW1 and PW2 attributed the firing to A7, whereas PW7 attributed the fatal shot to A4. PW8 also supported the version implicating A7, but that fact had not been stated by him in his Section 161 CrPC statement.
3. Inconsistency alone was not decisive
Para 3: The Supreme Court did not treat the discrepancies in chronology, by themselves, as sufficient to reject the eyewitnesses. The Court recognised that in an ambush involving indiscriminate firing and scattering of persons, witnesses cannot necessarily be expected to reproduce events in identical chronological order.
This is important: the Court did not acquit merely because of minor contradictions. The acquittal resulted from the cumulative effect of several serious deficiencies.
II. FAILURE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
4. No cartridges recovered
Paras 3–4: Although the prosecution alleged indiscriminate firing, no cartridges were recovered from the scene. The Investigating Officer did not establish that any search for cartridges had even been conducted. The Court considered this significant because indiscriminate firing would ordinarily be expected to leave more than one cartridge at the scene.
5. Bullet and weapons not recovered
Para 4: The bullet which entered and exited the deceased's body was not recovered. There was also no attempt to recover the weapons allegedly used by the accused.
6. Blood-stained earth not chemically examined
Para 5: Blood-stained earth had been collected from the scene but was not sent for chemical analysis. Consequently, there was no scientific evidence connecting the alleged scene of occurrence with the homicide.
7. Scene of occurrence itself became doubtful
Para 5: The Court observed that, apart from the oral testimony, there was no “tell-tale” evidence establishing the alleged ambush, firing and murder at the asserted location. The eyewitnesses had not clearly identified the scene in their prior statements, and the timing of the inquest and recording of the FIS further increased suspicion.
III. EYewitness EVIDENCE
8. Identification under alleged circumstances
Para 5: PW1's police statement revealed that immediately before the first shot he heard no noise, and thereafter everyone became panic-stricken and ran helter-skelter. The Supreme Court considered this circumstance relevant to the possibility of the witnesses accurately identifying the assailants. PW1 had also not named the accused in his police statement or stated that the accused had surrounded the victims.
9. Presence of eyewitnesses itself doubtful
Para 6: PW1 was the deceased's employee, PW2 a relative and PW7 his son. Their presence was considered doubtful, particularly because the prosecution alleged indiscriminate firing but none of these eyewitnesses suffered any injury.
10. Related witnesses are not automatically interested witnesses
The judgment does not lay down a rule that related witnesses must be rejected.
Rather, the Court expressly recognised that related witnesses cannot always be categorised as interested witnesses. Here, however, their relationship with the deceased, doubtful presence, admitted local tension and absence of independent corroboration collectively created serious doubt. [Paras 5–10]
IV. ANALYSIS OF MOTIVE
11. Alleged kidnapping motive unproved
Para 6: The prosecution alleged that a girl from the accused's village had been kidnapped by a boy from the deceased's village and that the deceased had refused to help locate them. The Court found no evidence establishing the alleged kidnapping or connecting the deceased with the alleged incident.
12. Political rivalry also unproved
The prosecution additionally alleged political rivalry arising from an election. The Court found nothing establishing such rivalry between the deceased and A1's father. Significantly, although A1's father was projected as central to the motive, he himself was not made an accused.
13. Motive could not strengthen prosecution case
The alleged motive was therefore characterised as unconvincing and could not provide a reliable foundation for conviction.
V. MEDICAL EVIDENCE VERSUS OCULAR EVIDENCE
14. Postmortem established homicide
Para 7: The Court accepted that the deceased had been murdered. The doctor found an entry wound and an exit wound caused by a bullet, together with abrasions resulting from the body falling to the ground.
Thus, the factum of death by firearm was not in dispute.
The dispute was who caused it and whether the prosecution's version of the occurrence was reliable.
15. Medical evidence contradicted prosecution narrative
Para 7: The doctor's evidence indicated that the deceased was apparently in a sitting position when shot from the back, and that the shot was fired from approximately three to four feet. The Court expressly observed that this expert evidence went against the eyewitness account.
16. Physical circumstances made prosecution version improbable
Para 10: The eyewitnesses said that five persons were walking in a straight line, with the deceased in front, while the accused allegedly approached from behind and fired. The Court considered it highly unlikely that the alleged ambush and firing could have occurred in the manner described, particularly in light of the medical evidence indicating a sitting position and close-range firing.
VI. INVESTIGATION
17. Investigating Officer's evidence contradicted prosecution explanation
Para 8: The Government Advocate attempted to explain the absence of cartridges by suggesting that the victims had been walking along an uneven ridge surrounded by grass and crops. However, the Investigating Officer described the place of occurrence as a pedestrian lane, with recently ploughed fields on either side.
Thus, the prosecution's explanation for the absence of physical evidence was itself contradicted by the investigating evidence.
18. Other important investigative omissions
Para 8: The Investigating Officer:
- did not send blood-stained earth for laboratory testing;
- did not seize the clothes of the deceased;
- did not seize the clothes of the witnesses who allegedly carried the deceased to hospital; and
- did not examine the independent witness who was allegedly present.
VII. HIGH COURT'S ERROR
19. Reliance upon an unproved complaint against the Investigating Officer
Para 9: The High Court relied upon a complaint alleging collusion by the Investigating Officer and used it to explain the poor investigation. The Supreme Court pointed out that the alleged complaint had not been elicited from the eyewitnesses and, in any event, did not explain or cure the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence.
20. High Court improperly brushed aside medical evidence
Para 9: The High Court accepted the eyewitness evidence as consistent and effectively disregarded the medical opinion suggesting that the deceased had been shot while sitting. Its reasoning that the shooting hand might shake and that the victim's movement could affect the shape of the injury was characterised by the Supreme Court as conjectural.
21. Conviction could not rest on unsupported assumptions
The High Court ultimately concluded that the accused had ambushed the deceased and fired indiscriminately, establishing the common object/intention to commit murder, essentially on the eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court found that approach unsustainable when the ocular evidence itself was rendered doubtful by medical, physical and investigative circumstances. [Paras 9–10]
VIII. LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES
22. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Para 11: The prosecution bears the burden of establishing culpability beyond reasonable doubt. Where the principal eyewitness evidence does not inspire confidence and there is no reliable corroborative evidence, conviction cannot be sustained.
23. Defective investigation does not automatically benefit accused
The Court carefully distinguished between:
Faulty investigation and absence of reliable prosecution evidence.
A faulty investigation does not, by itself, entitle an accused to acquittal. But where the prosecution has otherwise failed to produce reliable evidence, the Court cannot presume guilt merely because the Investigating Officer was recalcitrant or allegations of collusion were made against him. [Para 11]
24. Court cannot repair evidentiary gaps by presumption
This is one of the strongest propositions emerging from the judgment:
An investigative failure cannot be converted into substantive proof of guilt.
The Court cannot use allegations against the Investigating Officer to assume that the missing evidence would necessarily have supported the prosecution.
25. Cumulative assessment of evidence
The Court's approach was not to isolate each discrepancy. It examined the cumulative effect of:
- doubtful presence of eyewitnesses;
- their relationship with the deceased;
- local hostility;
- non-examination of independent witness;
- absence of cartridges;
- absence of weapon recovery;
- non-recovery of the bullet;
- failure to chemically examine blood-stained earth;
- failure to seize clothes;
- doubtful scene of occurrence;
- unexplained sequence concerning inquest and FIS;
- unproved motive; and
- medical evidence inconsistent with ocular testimony.
Together these circumstances rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful. [Paras 5–11]
IX. CONCLUSION
26. Prosecution failed to prove culpability
Para 11: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had not established the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness testimony did not inspire confidence and there was an almost complete absence of reliable recoveries or seizures.
27. Not merely a faulty investigation
The Court made the stronger observation that the case was not merely one of faulty investigation, but effectively one in which no proper investigation had been carried out. Even the fact that the inquest preceded the recording of the FIS was treated as a serious circumstance.
28. Final holding
Paras 11–13: Since there was no reliable evidence establishing the accused's guilt, the Court acquitted the accused, directed their release forthwith if not required in any other case, cancelled bail bonds where applicable, and allowed the appeals.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where the prosecution relies substantially upon eyewitness testimony, but the witnesses' presence is doubtful, their testimony is materially inconsistent with medical evidence, independent witnesses are withheld, material physical evidence is not recovered or scientifically examined, the alleged motive is unproved, and the investigation itself fails to establish the scene and manner of occurrence, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cannot cure such evidentiary deficiencies by relying upon an allegation that the Investigating Officer conducted a collusive investigation or by presuming facts favourable to the prosecution.
Criminal trial — Eyewitness evidence — Medical and circumstantial evidence — Where ocular testimony is rendered doubtful by medical evidence, absence of material recoveries, non-examination of independent witnesses, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses and unproved motive, conviction cannot rest on conjecture; prosecution must independently establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and investigative lapses cannot be converted into proof of culpability. [Paras 7–11]
