Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1686–1688 of 2023, allowed the appeals filed by 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302, 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The apex court set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that:
“The Trial Court and High Court have misread the evidence of these material prosecution witnesses. Very striking features of the prosecution’s case and evidence have been ignored.”
Accordingly, the Court acquitted all the appellants and directed their immediate release.
Facts
- The incident occurred on 14 November 2012, involving a brutal attack on three individuals who were traveling in a Scorpio car—Kathiresan (brother of PW-1), his son Prasanna, and their driver, all of whom died.
- PW-1 (Krishnan) and PW-9 (Nikila), the daughter of one of the deceased, were survivors and witnesses.
- The attack allegedly stemmed from political rivalry following local panchayat elections in which PW-1’s wife defeated the wife of Accused No.1.
- A complaint was registered naming 36 accused. Charges were ultimately framed against 21, and the Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 11.
- The High Court upheld the conviction. Appeals against acquittal of Accused Nos. 12 to 21 were also dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the convictions based on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-9 were sustainable.
- Whether the prosecution established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether this Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The prosecution’s case was based on three key witnesses—PW-1, PW-2, and PW-9—all of whom were unreliable due to contradictions, delay, and procedural flaws.
- PW-1 gave an exaggerated and politically motivated account and initially named 36 accused persons.
- PW-2 emerged after 43 days, making his testimony highly suspect.
- PW-9, a minor at the time, was examined without conducting a voir dire test, rendering her statement legally questionable.
- Corroborative evidence such as fingerprints and weapon recovery lacked procedural safeguards like Mahazars or panchnamas.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The State argued that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be reopened under Article 136.
- The delay in recording PW-2’s statement was justifiable due to fear.
- PW-9’s testimony was corroborative and reliable despite the procedural lapse in her examination.
- The fingerprint evidence and recovery of weapons added credibility to the prosecution’s version.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reaffirmed the principles under Article 136 of the Constitution:
- It is not an ordinary court of criminal appeal.
- Interference in concurrent findings of fact is permissible only in rare cases involving manifest illegality, misreading of evidence, or grave miscarriage of justice.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Pappu v. State of U.P., (2022) 10 SCC 321
- Mst Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158
These judgments highlight that while the Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence under Article 136, it may do so in cases of clear misreading or ignorance of crucial facts.
Court’s Reasoning
- PW-1’s testimony was found to be politically motivated and inconsistent. He gave conflicting accounts regarding the number of accused and whether he hid during the incident.
- PW-2’s testimony was disbelieved due to unexplained delay of 43 days and non-examination of an accompanying eyewitness (Abdul Rehman).
- PW-9’s testimony was excluded as no preliminary voir dire questions were posed to establish her competence, violating settled law on examining child witnesses.
- Fingerprint evidence was inadmissible due to absence of Mahazar and non-exhibition of photographs.
- Weapon recovery was found to be unreliable as all recoveries were from open or easily accessible locations without credible procedural safeguards.
The Court concluded that:
“Only on the basis of recovery, by no stretch of imagination can the accused be convicted.”
Conclusion
The Court held that the findings of the lower courts were vitiated due to misreading and overlooking of critical evidence. Since the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt:
“The impugned Judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences alleged against them.”
The appellants, having served more than 9 years and 4 months in prison, were ordered to be released forthwith.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s role in correcting miscarriages of justice even under the constrained review power of Article 136. It reiterates that procedural lapses—especially in witness examination and evidence collection—can be fatal to the prosecution’s case, even in grave offences like murder. It also clarifies the nuanced limits of appellate intervention in criminal cases.