Same Six Witnesses in Every Case? MP Government Faces Scrutiny Over ‘Professional Testifiers’

The usual suspects? Same 6 testify as MP government witnesses in multiple cases

Imagine walking into a courtroom—any courtroom in Madhya Pradesh—and seeing the same familiar faces on the witness stand. Not because they’re victims or bystanders, but because they’ve been called by the **state government**… again.

A recent investigation has uncovered a disturbing trend: across multiple districts and unrelated legal matters—from land disputes to corruption charges to public order cases—the same six individuals consistently appear as official witnesses for the Madhya Pradesh government. This recurring cast of “professional testifiers” has raised serious questions about evidence fabrication, procedural abuse, and the erosion of judicial fairness .

Legal professionals, opposition leaders, and civil society groups are now demanding transparency. “When the same people testify in 30 different cases over two years, it’s not coincidence—it’s a system,” says senior advocate Meena Desai, who has challenged several such testimonies in the MP High Court.

Table of Contents

The MP Government Witnesses Pattern Exposed

Data compiled from district court records between January 2024 and December 2025 reveals that six individuals—identified in documents as R.K. Sharma, A. Patel, S. Verma, M. Khan, P. Singh, and D. Yadav—have collectively testified in at least **87 cases** filed or defended by various MP government departments .

These cases span Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, and Gwalior, involving issues as diverse as:

  • Forest encroachment allegations
  • Municipal demolition drives
  • Police encounter justifications
  • Public infrastructure contract disputes

Crucially, none of these individuals hold official positions that would naturally place them at the scene of these varied incidents. Yet, their affidavits often contain nearly identical phrasing, describing “observing unlawful activity” or “assisting law enforcement in maintaining order.”

Who Are the ‘Usual Suspects’?

While full identities are protected in some filings, investigative reports suggest most are local residents with no prior legal or administrative background. One, identified as R.K. Sharma, is listed as a “self-employed trader” in Bhopal but has testified in 14 separate cases across three districts—all supporting the state’s version of events .

Notably, several of these witnesses have never been cross-examined rigorously, and their testimonies have frequently been accepted without corroborating evidence. In one 2025 land acquisition case, the same witness (S. Verma) provided identical statements in both the trial court and a subsequent appeal—despite the facts of the case having changed significantly.

The practice violates core principles of Indian jurisprudence:

  1. Witness Credibility: The Indian Evidence Act (Section 137) requires witnesses to have direct knowledge of facts. Repeated appearances suggest performative, not factual, testimony.
  2. Conflict of Interest: If these individuals are compensated or incentivized by the state, their impartiality is compromised.
  3. Judicial Economy Abuse: Courts waste time and resources on rehearing the same voices instead of genuine evidence.

“This isn’t just sloppy lawyering—it’s institutionalized perjury,” warns Dr. Arvind Kumar, a former judge and legal ethics professor at NALSAR University. “When the state becomes a factory for ready-made witnesses, justice becomes a script, not a search for truth.”

Precedents and Similar Cases in India

Madhya Pradesh isn’t alone. In 2022, the Delhi High Court criticized the Delhi Police for using “habitual witnesses” in drug seizure cases, leading to mass acquittals . Similarly, in Gujarat, courts have dismissed testimonies from individuals who appeared in over 20 unrelated cases within a year.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that “mechanical reliance on stock witnesses” undermines the criminal justice system. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), the Court ruled that such practices “cast a shadow on the entire prosecution.”

Government Response and Public Reaction

The Madhya Pradesh Law Department has issued a brief statement calling the reports “baseless” and claiming all witnesses were “lawfully summoned based on their presence at relevant sites.” However, it refused to provide documentation linking these individuals to specific incidents.

Opposition parties have seized on the issue, with the Congress party filing a notice in the state assembly demanding a judicial inquiry. Meanwhile, citizen advocacy groups like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) are compiling dossiers to file public interest litigations (PILs) in the High Court.

For more on judicial accountability in India, see our deep dive on [INTERNAL_LINK:indian-judiciary-transparency-reforms].

Conclusion: Is Justice for Sale in Madhya Pradesh?

The repeated use of the same MP government witnesses across unrelated cases isn’t just odd—it’s a red flag for systemic manipulation. If the state can manufacture consensus through a rotating roster of compliant individuals, the very foundation of fair trial rights crumbles. As courts across India grow more vigilant against “professional witnesses,” Madhya Pradesh’s judiciary now faces a critical test: uphold the rule of law, or become complicit in its erosion.

Sources

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top