The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of Nepal Singh in a 1993 criminal case from Madhya Pradesh, holding that the prosecution evidence identifying those involved in the incident was not reliable enough to sustain the conviction.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih found serious contradictions and embellishments in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses. The Court also noted that the possibility of false implication arising from an existing land dispute could not be ruled out.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 6 of 1993 registered at Police Station Hatta in Damoh district under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case concerned an incident dated January 6, 1993, in which Gaflu and Bharat Singh sustained injuries. Gaflu later died from his injuries.
Initially, 11 persons were implicated in connection with the incident. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses during the trial. Five accused persons were acquitted, while Nepal Singh and four others were convicted under Sections 148, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC.
The State did not challenge the acquittal of the other accused. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted persons and upheld the trial court's view.
Supreme Court Examines Witness Testimony
Before the Supreme Court, the central issue was not whether Gaflu had died from the injuries. The Court noted that his death from the injuries was established through medical evidence and the testimony of PW-14, Dr. P.D. Kargaiyan.
The key question was who had actually participated in the incident.
The prosecution relied substantially on PW-6, an alleged eyewitness who had also sustained injuries, and PW-7, the deceased's wife. However, the Supreme Court found that their statements did not remain consistent when tested against their cross-examination.
The Bench observed that their testimonies were “full of embellishments” and did not inspire confidence.
Court Points to Contradictions
The Court closely examined the evidence of PW-6. It noted several admissions concerning previous quarrels between the parties and circumstances surrounding the incident.
Importantly, PW-6 claimed to have lost consciousness after receiving the first blow, yet also described which assailant had caused particular injuries and with which weapon. The Court found this difficult to reconcile.
The Bench also relied on his admission that he had not personally witnessed his father being struck with a farsa.
The evidence of PW-7 also raised concerns. She stated that she was at home feeding her children when she heard a commotion and then went towards the field. By the time she arrived, her husband had already been placed on a cot. The Court held that this contradicted the part of her earlier testimony suggesting that she had witnessed the incident itself.
Land Dispute and Other Evidence
The Supreme Court further noted that the parties were involved in a land dispute and that an earlier assault involving the complainant side had also been placed on record.
It held that the recovery of weapons such as lathis, farsa and ballam could not, by itself, establish a connection between those articles and the accused, particularly when such objects were commonly found in rural households.
The Court also found the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 unreliable after examining their cross-examination.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Bench also pointed out that the trial court had convicted some persons while acquitting others on the same set of facts and depositions. According to the Supreme Court, the High Court had not adequately explained why the reasoning used to acquit the co-accused could not also apply to those convicted.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside Nepal Singh’s conviction and quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated March 8, 2018.
It directed that the accused be released if in custody, cancelled any bail bonds and disposed of the pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nepal Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2239-2240 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: August 17, 2026
-300x169.webp)
