Supreme Court Acquits All Accused In Murder Case | Holds High Court Proceeded On Presumptions And Assumptions Based On The Story Scripted By The Prosecution Without Any Legal Evidence
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acquitted all accused individuals previously convicted under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court. The Court criticized the High Court for heavily relying on the testimony of Investigating Officers and inadmissible Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, thereby violating fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The prosecution alleged that due to familial disputes over the division of assets from their father’s business empire, including educational institutions, severe enmity developed between A1 and his brother, PW4. The deceased, a former employee in one of the institutions managed by A1, resigned and joined the institution managed by PW4, allegedly aligning himself completely with PW4. This alignment, according to the prosecution, motivated A1 to conspire with his employees, A2 to A4, and through the assistance of A7, an Advocate, hire contract killers A5 and A6 to execute the murder.
The incident occurred on 28.04.2011 at around 07:45 pm, where A5 and A6 allegedly hacked the deceased to death in front of his son, PW8. Despite the immediacy of the incident, PW8, the prime eyewitness, failed to identify the assailants or the weapons used, even though he initially claimed the ability to identify them in his First Information Statement (FIS). The deceased succumbed to his injuries at 08:40 pm on the same day.
The prosecution presented 87 witnesses to establish motive, conspiracy, and execution of the crime. However, 71 of these witnesses, including key eyewitnesses and family members, turned hostile during trial. Despite the absence of corroborating witness testimony, the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal and convicted A1 to A6.
The appellants, represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, challenged the High Court’s reliance on police testimonies and Section 161 statements, arguing that the conviction violated Section 162 Cr.P.C. and fundamental evidentiary standards.
The Supreme Court critically examined the reasoning adopted by the High Court and found serious legal errors. It observed that the High Court improperly relied on inadmissible Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and speculative reasoning rather than direct evidence.
"The High Court seriously erred in relying on the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161, as affirmed by the Investigating Officer, clearly in violation of Section 162 and the specific use to which Section 161 statements can be put to."
The Bench noted that the eye-witness PW8 categorically failed to identify the accused or the murder weapons during trial. Similarly, other critical witnesses, including PW1 and PW9, failed to confirm the presence or identity of the accused at the crime scene. Despite this, the High Court erroneously placed reliance on the Section 161 statements recorded by the Investigating Officers.
The Court observed: "Merely because the story came out of the mouth of the IO, it cannot be believed and a legal sanctity given to it, higher than that provided to Section 161 statements under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C."
Regarding the recovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes allegedly belonging to A5 and A6, the Supreme Court held that these recoveries were made based on the confession of A3, who was not even charged with the crime proper.
"The mere recovery of dress under Section 27, that also through a confession statement of an alleged conspirator, does not implicate A5 or A6 who were alleged to be the assailants who killed the deceased."
On the issue of motive, the Court found that despite the prosecution’s narrative, no credible evidence was produced to establish a direct enmity leading to the crime. The Bench held: "We find absolutely no reason to find the motive established."
The Court further criticized the High Court’s reliance on police testimony without corroborating independent evidence, calling it "egregiously wrong" and contrary to the fundamental principle that presumption of innocence strengthens after an acquittal.
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the convictions imposed by the High Court restoring that of the Trial Court. It directed that the accused be acquitted of all charges immediately.
"We find absolutely no reason to sustain the conviction entered by the High Court, reversing the order of acquittal."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Advocate; Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Advocate; Mr. P. V. Harikrishnan, Advocate; Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Advocate; Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Aman Panwar, Additional Advocate General; Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Shrey Kuldeep Brahmbhatt, Advocate
Case Title: Renuka Prasad vs. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 657
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189-3190 of 2023 & Connected Appeals
Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
[Read/Download order]
