Santosh Singh (Appellant) vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Respondents) – Criminal Appeal Nos. 1303–1305 of 2022 (with Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2022) – 2026 INSC 972 – September 08, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Identification of Appeal and Impugned Judgment
The appeals were instituted before the Supreme Court of India by the injured eyewitness and de-facto complainant, challenging the final common appellate judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 176 of 2013, 75 of 2013, 104 of 2013, and 445 of 2013. Through the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the trial court’s conviction and sentence of accused Nagendra Singh (A6), Dalpratap Singh (A12), and Rajeev Lochan Singh (A13), sustaining the conviction exclusively against the primary shooter Ajeet Singh @ Babbe Singh (A1), while also dismissing the complainant’s appeal against the trial court’s acquittal of ten other co-accused. [Paragraphs 1, 27, 28]
Factual Matrix and Lower Courts’ Verdicts
The prosecution case originated from an incident where the deceased and the injured complainant, while returning home after a verbal confrontation, were ambushed near their residence by seventeen persons; during the assault, A6 held down the victim while A12 exhorted A1 to shoot, whereupon A1 fired a point-blank 12-bore gunshot wound into the chest of the deceased, while the complainant was simultaneously assaulted with a lathi. The Sessions Court, with three absconding accused separated, tried fourteen accused, summoned A13 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and convicted A1, A6, A12, and A13 under Sections 302 and 148 read with constructive liability, while acquitting the remaining ten accused for want of specific overt acts. On appeal, the High Court acquitted A13 on the ground of absence of an overt act or fired shot despite an unproved plea of alibi, acquitted A6 on the premise that holding a victim shot at close range would have caused injuries to the restrainer, and acquitted A12 on the premise that identifying voice exhortations at night was doubtful, leaving only A1 convicted. [Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Core Legal Submissions of the Parties
The appellant argued that the ocular testimonies of the injured eyewitness and natural witnesses established the unlawful assembly and specific overt acts of A6 holding the victim, A12 exhorting the killing, and A13 brandishing a firearm, asserting that the High Court committed a manifest error by failing to apply Section 149 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and erroneously demanding individual overt violent acts for each member of an unlawful assembly. Conversely, the accused respondents contended that the eyewitnesses were interested and related, independent witnesses had turned hostile, material omissions existed between investigative statements and trial depositions, no forensic or ballistic recovery of weapons had occurred, the presence of sufficient illumination to identify exhortations was unproved, and the High Court had adopted a plausible view that ought not to be disturbed in an appeal against acquittal. [Paragraphs 11, 12]
Ratio Decidendi and Findings
The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is inapplicable to Indian criminal jurisprudence, placing a mandatory obligation upon the court to separate the grain from the chaff, so that the over-implication or omnibus attribution of roles to certain individuals does not warrant discarding credible, corroborated ocular evidence establishing the active participation of co-accused. Constructive liability under Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code squarely attaches to participants who facilitate a homicide through physical restraint or explicit exhortation, and an order of acquittal cannot be sustained upon unscientific surmises that a person restraining a victim must sustain ballistic injuries during close-range shooting when medical evidence proves the projectile and pellets lodged entirely within the body. [Paragraphs 8, 9, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]
Many omissions put to the witnesses
19. What remains are the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW6, PW8, PW10 and PW11. Of these, we have our own suspicion with respect to PW2, PW6 and PW8 who are close relatives of the deceased. Related witnesses cannot be merely termed interested witnesses, if their presence at the scene of occurrence is natural. Here, their presence is natural since the spot, where the ambush occurred and the victim was shot, was very near the house of the victim. Our suspicion, however, is on account of their testimony itself. PW2 and PW6 spoke of having come out from the house, being informed of the scuffle, by the son of PW6. There were many omissions put to the two witnesses of statements made in chief examination, not recorded in their Section 161 statements. PW2 spoke of the incident having occurred at the barn of her husband. PW6 spoke of the assault having been carried out in front of a temple. PW8 admitted that his deposition was taken 10 to 13 days later. Hence, the reliable testimonies are of PW1, PW10 and PW11, which would be sufficient insofar as the incident spoken of, particularly, the shot injury sustained by one of the brothers and the injury with lathi sustained by PW1. PW11 is also a close relative of PW1.
Accused carrying a gun was an addition from the witness statement
20. What assumes relevance from the examination of PW1 for our purpose is that PW1 speaks of A1 having carried a single barrel gun and A13 having carried a double barrel gun in his deposition before Court. PW2 also spoke of A13 having carried a gun which was an addition from her Section 161 statement. PW10 and PW11 categorically stated that A13 was not present at the scene of occurrence. The threats levelled by A13, as spoken of by PW1 and PW6 also do not figure in their Section 161 statements. More pertinently, there is no such plea of A13 having carried a gun, or levelled threats against PW1 and his family, disclosed in the FIS. Pertinent also is the fact that many of the eyewitnesses who were examined before A13 was arrayed under Section 319, did not speak of his presence. They spoke of A13’s presence only when they were recalled and again examined-in-chief.
Light source
24. Likewise, the common object and intention of A12, if not under Section 149 definitely under Section 34 is discernible from the exhortation made which was consistently stated by PW1 in his FIS and in his testimony before Court. The eyewitnesses, persons of the locality had spoken of an electric light from the nearby temple having lit up the scene of occurrence. The absence of light is sought to be established by the defense by examining a lineman working with the Electricity Board, as DW1. Though he spoke of no electric connection to the temple, he admitted that the houses in the area had electric connections. There were also suggestions put to him that the locals used to light up the temple from a connection drawn from their houses or straight from the electric pole, which was denied. In any event the houses in the area were electrified and even otherwise the accused are well known to the witnesses and identification could also be from their voice.
