Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by two accused persons, quashing their convictions under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Highlighting inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s case—particularly the improbable presence of key eyewitnesses—the Court concluded:
“Once their presence at the scene becomes immensely doubtful, it renders the entire prosecution story highly unbelievable.”
The Supreme Court thus acquitted the appellants and ordered their immediate release.
Facts
The case concerned the alleged murder of one Edison Suvisedha Muthu in Tirunelveli district. The prosecution claimed that the murder was a result of longstanding enmity between the deceased and the family of the first accused (A1), whose father had previously been injured in an attack by the deceased. On 14 April 2013, A2 allegedly took the deceased to a liquor shop, and while drinking there, signalled A1 to attack the deceased with an “aruval” (a sickle-like weapon), resulting in his death on the spot.
The deceased’s son (PW-1) and wife (PW-2) claimed to have followed him to the liquor shop and witnessed the attack. Based on their testimonies and recovery of the weapon, both accused were convicted—A1 under Section 302 IPC and A2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the presence of the two key eyewitnesses at the crime scene could be accepted as credible and natural.
- Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the conviction could be sustained based solely on interested witnesses without corroborative support.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that it was highly improbable for PW-1 and PW-2 to have covered a 16-kilometre distance from their house to the liquor shop on a bicycle within just 30 minutes. Moreover, their conduct raised serious doubts—they returned home after the incident instead of approaching the police station located en route. Given these unnatural actions, their presence at the crime scene was implausible. The defence also argued that being close relatives of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were interested witnesses whose testimony needed careful scrutiny and corroboration, as held in Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution contended that there was a clear motive—past enmity between the families due to prior police complaints and physical altercations. It was submitted that the eyewitnesses’ accounts were consistent and corroborated by the post-mortem findings. The medical evidence, including 26 injuries on the deceased’s body, aligned with the narrative of a violent attack using a sharp weapon. The recovery of the weapon and the motorcycle used by A2 further strengthened the prosecution case. The State asserted that mere relationship with the deceased could not be a reason to discredit PW-1 and PW-2’s testimony.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the principle that testimony of related or interested witnesses must be evaluated with circumspection. It referred to Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (AIR 2002 SC 3633), which requires heightened scrutiny of such witnesses’ credibility. In this case, both eyewitnesses were the deceased’s close family members, whose narratives were the only foundation of the prosecution’s case.
The Court also discussed the jurisprudence requiring the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially where other eyewitnesses had turned hostile and where circumstantial evidence (like recovery of weapons) alone was insufficient to corroborate the version of events.
Precedent Analysis
- Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675 – Emphasised caution in accepting testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration.
- Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa – Held that related witnesses must be scrutinised carefully for credibility.
- Mohamed Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam – Cited for the principle that proximity to the deceased does not disqualify testimony, but mandates extra care in evaluation.
The Court noted that these principles had not been adequately followed by the lower courts, which had accepted the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 despite serious doubts regarding their presence at the scene.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court was particularly concerned by the claim that the eyewitnesses, riding on a single bicycle, covered 16 kilometres in under 30 minutes to witness the attack. The Court found this version implausible, stating:
“It seems highly unlikely that a boy of 17 years of age would be able to cover such a long distance, that too with his middle-aged mother as a pillion rider.”
The delay in reporting the incident to the police, despite passing a police station en route home, further deepened the suspicion. Additionally, the Court noted that several other eyewitnesses present at the scene (including TASMAC staff and customers) turned hostile and claimed that four or five persons attacked the deceased—contradicting the prosecution story of only two accused.
The post-mortem revealed 26 injuries, making it unlikely that one person alone could inflict them. The Court thus concluded:
“The case at hand is certainly not the one where it has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused only.”
Conclusion
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The convictions and sentences were set aside. The appellants were acquitted and directed to be released unless required in any other case.
“There remains an impressionable question mark about the presence of the accused persons at the spot of the crime itself.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms foundational criminal law principles that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that testimony of interested witnesses must be scrutinised rigorously. It underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to not rely on assumptions or fill gaps in prosecution stories with speculation. The ruling will serve as a crucial precedent in cases hinging on sole eyewitness testimony and circumstantial recovery.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh – Cited to argue that interested witnesses must be corroborated by other evidence.
- Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa – Quoted to reiterate that related witnesses require higher scrutiny.
- Mohamed Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam – Referred to define principles around evaluating related witnesses’ testimony.
FAQs
1. Can a conviction be based solely on related witnesses’ testimony?
Yes, but such testimony must be scrutinised carefully for credibility and consistency. Independent corroboration is desirable.
2. Is delay in reporting to police relevant in criminal cases?
Yes, unexplained delays in lodging a complaint or informing the police may cast doubt on the witness’s version and credibility.
3. Can hostile witnesses affect the prosecution case?
Yes, if most independent witnesses turn hostile, and the case rests solely on doubtful testimony, it can weaken the prosecution beyond repair.