A young lawyer in Indore has exposed a systemic fraud that could overturn hundreds of criminal convictions: the same two men appeared as witnesses in 165 different police cases, raising disturbing questions about the integrity of Madhya Pradesh's criminal justice system and potentially putting innocent people behind bars.
The investigation, detailed by Newslaundry, began when the lawyer noticed an unusual pattern while reviewing First Information Reports (FIRs): the same two names kept appearing as witnesses across unrelated crimes, in different parts of the city, at impossible timeframes. What started as professional curiosity became a painstaking documentation of what appears to be a "stock witness" racket—police officers using the same individuals repeatedly to fabricate witness testimony.
The practice of "stock witnesses" is not new in Indian policing, but the scale uncovered in Indore is staggering. 165 FIRs means these two men allegedly witnessed everything from theft to assault to narcotics possession, often on the same days in different locations. The mathematical impossibility of their omnipresence went unnoticed—or ignored—by courts and prosecutors for years.
In India, as across the subcontinent, scale and diversity make simple narratives impossible—and fascinating. But the Indore case illustrates a uniform challenge across Indian states: overburdened police forces taking shortcuts that corrupt the entire criminal justice process. When conviction rates and case closure statistics become performance metrics, some officers manufacture evidence rather than gather it.
The implications are profound. Every case involving these "stock witnesses" is now legally compromised. Defense lawyers are already filing appeals for clients convicted based on their testimony. If courts overturn these convictions—as legal experts say they must—dozens or potentially hundreds of people could walk free, including some who may actually be guilty but were convicted on fraudulent evidence.
The young lawyer who exposed the pattern has faced both praise and pressure. In a system where challenging police conduct can invite retaliation, speaking up requires courage. Yet this case also represents something hopeful: young legal professionals using technology and data analysis to hold institutions accountable. The lawyer used basic spreadsheet analysis of public FIR records—work that should have been done by prosecutors or judicial oversight bodies but wasn't.
The Madhya Pradesh police initially denied the allegations, then promised an internal investigation. That response is familiar to those who track police accountability in India. Internal inquiries rarely produce consequences, and the officers involved often face transfer rather than prosecution. Real accountability would require external investigation, criminal charges for fabricating evidence, and systematic reform to prevent recurrence.
Legal experts point to deeper structural problems. India's courts face a backlog of over 50 million pending cases. Judges, desperate to clear dockets, often accept police testimony without rigorous scrutiny. Public defenders are overwhelmed, and poor defendants lack resources to challenge evidence. In this environment, stock witnesses thrive because no one has time to notice the pattern.
The Indore exposure comes amid growing scrutiny of police practices across Indian states. From encounter killings to custodial torture to evidence fabrication, the gap between constitutional ideals and ground reality remains wide. Reform proposals—better training, independent oversight, body cameras, witness protection—have circulated for years with limited implementation.
What makes this case particularly significant is that it was exposed not by journalists or activists but by a lawyer working within the system. It suggests that India's democratic institutions, however flawed, still create space for accountability when individuals choose to use it. The question is whether the system will reward this lawyer's diligence with reform, or simply punish the exposed officers without addressing the incentives that created the fraud in the first place.
For the defendants whose convictions rest on stock witness testimony, the exposure offers hope of justice delayed but perhaps not denied. For India's criminal justice system, it is another reminder that shortcuts don't just undermine individual cases—they erode public trust in the very institutions meant to protect the rule of law.
