In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted three men and two women who were previously convicted for a murder that took place back in 2010. The apex court delivered its judgment on a recent Thursday, overturning the decisions of both the trial court and the Bombay High Court.
A Flawed Investigation from the Start
The case revolved around the murder of a man named Mohan Anna Shetti in September 2010. The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness. However, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, found glaring inconsistencies and a complete lack of corroborative evidence.
The court strongly criticized the police investigation, describing it as "botched up" and "lackadaisical." It pointed out that the investigating officers failed to perform even the most basic forensic procedures. No fingerprint analysis was conducted on the alleged murder weapons—a knife and an axe—or on the motorcycle used in the crime. Furthermore, the police did not secure any CCTV footage from the area, which could have provided crucial evidence.
Doubts Over Witness Testimony and Motive
The judgment raised serious doubts about the credibility of the sole eyewitness. The bench noted that the witness was a close relative of the deceased, which naturally implied a strong bias. More critically, the witness's account was not supported by any other evidence or independent testimony.
The Supreme Court also found the alleged motive for the murder to be weak and unconvincing. The prosecution had claimed the murder was a result of a previous altercation, but the court deemed this insufficient to establish a clear and compelling reason for the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Verdict and Its Implications
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the five accused—Raju Rama Shinde, Satish Shankar Shinde, Ramesh Rama Shinde, Shobha Ramesh Shinde, and Sujata Satish Shinde—to the required legal standard. The bench emphasized that in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused.
The court ordered the immediate release of the acquitted individuals if they were not wanted in any other case. This ruling underscores the judiciary's role as a safeguard against wrongful convictions, especially when investigations are poorly conducted. It serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies about the paramount importance of a thorough, scientific, and unbiased investigative process to ensure justice is served.
