Nine Years In Jail Without Proof Beyond Doubt | Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based On 'Misreading Of Evidence' And 'Ignored Striking Features' | Acquits All Eleven Accused In Triple Murder
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has set aside the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court against eleven individuals accused of offences under Sections 302, 307, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The court held that the guilt of the accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellants, who had been in custody for over nine years, were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The appeals arose from the judgment dated 21st March 2019 delivered by the High Court of Madras at Madurai. The High Court had affirmed the conviction of the eleven appellants by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, as well as Section 147 IPC for Accused Nos. 1 and 9 to 11 and Section 148 IPC for Accused Nos. 2 to 8.
According to the FIR registered on 14th November 2012, the incident stemmed from political rivalry after the Panchayat elections of 2011, wherein the wife of PW-1 won the post of Panchayat President, defeating the wife of Accused No. 1. It was alleged that Deceased No. 1 (Kathiresan), his son Prasanna (Deceased No. 2), and daughter Nikila (PW-9), were travelling with their driver Boominathan (Deceased No. 3) when they were ambushed by the accused group. PW-1, who claimed to be an eye-witness, stated that the accused arrived in a truck and on motorcycles, armed with weapons, and attacked the car occupants.
The prosecution claimed that PW-1 escaped and later lodged the FIR after meeting with police officers and political associates. PW-2, a chance witness, came forward 43 days later and gave a statement. PW-9, the minor daughter of the deceased, was also presented as an eyewitness.
The prosecution presented forensic evidence including fingerprints allegedly matching Accused Nos. 2 and 3, recovery of weapons from various accused, and paint flakes found in the Scorpio car that matched the truck. Fifty-eight witnesses were examined, including PW-35, who prepared the fingerprint report, and PW-46, the photographer.
The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 11 on 29th September 2015 and acquitted Accused Nos. 12 to 21. Appeals were filed by the convicted accused, and the High Court upheld the convictions.
"The evidence of PW-1 (Krishnan) does not inspire confidence." The Court recorded that although PW-1 claimed to be an eyewitness, inconsistencies in his account cast doubt. He initially named thirty-six individuals but later withdrew objection to dropping fifteen. "He exaggerated the incident due to their political rivalry."
On PW-2's testimony, the Court noted: "Considering the conduct of the witness of remaining silent for a long period of one and a half months, the testimony of this witness cannot be believed." The Court found the delay in reporting unexplained and critical.
Regarding PW-9, the Court held: "The Trial Court has not followed the condition precedent before examining a minor witness... the learned Trial Judge did not satisfy himself that the witness understood the importance of the oath." The testimony was deemed unreliable, noting the absence of a test identification parade and possibility of tutoring.
On forensic evidence, the Court stated: "No Mahazar was drawn at the time of taking photographs of the fingerprints... the case made out by the prosecution cannot be accepted." The failure to prepare proper documentation undermined the reliability of the evidence.
Recovery of weapons was also scrutinised: "The recovery is shown from the same place on 5th December, 2012 at three different times... which is an open place." The Court questioned the credibility of the recovery process.
"Only on the basis of recovery, by no stretch of imagination can the accused be convicted," the Court concluded.
Further, the Court examined its scope under Article 136 and reiterated established jurisprudence: "This Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence... unless the assessment... is vitiated by misreading of evidence..." The Court found that "very striking features of the prosecution’s case and evidence have been ignored by the Courts."
The Supreme Court stated: "Hence, the appeals are allowed. 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. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case."
The Court added: "We are of the view that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. All the appellants have undergone sentence for more than 9 years and 4 months."
The Bench concluded that "the analysis of the evidence of material witnesses made by us shows that the Trial Court and High Court have misread the evidence of these material prosecution witnesses." The Court stated that the prosecution's case could not stand without reliable eyewitness testimony or credible forensic evidence.
Case Title: Agniraj & Ors. etc. vs. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police CB-CID
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 774
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos.1686-1688 of 2023
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
