Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court of India, in George v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024 INSC 974), has addressed a crucial aspect in criminal jurisprudence regarding the evidentiary value of the testimony of interested witnesses. The Court emphasized that while the testimony of an interested witness cannot be discarded merely on the basis of their interest, such evidence must undergo careful scrutiny.

"It is further to be noted that, in the present case, Kovilraj (PW-1) is the father of the deceased and is an interested witness. No doubt that merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness. However, the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.", the court held.

Facts of the case

The case arose from an incident on May 15-16, 2015, during a church festival in Ananthapuram. The petitioner along with two others, allegedly attacked the deceased, following a prior dispute over church elections. The prosecution's case, primarily based on the testimony of the deceased's father, Kovilraj (PW-1), stated that the petitioner/accused assaulted the victim with a knife while the other accused restrained him. The victim succumbed to his injuries, leading to the conviction the petitioner /accused for murder under Section 302 IPC by the trial court, which was later upheld by the High Court. However, the co-accused were acquitted based on the same testimony, raising questions about evidentiary consistency.

Key Findings of the Judgment

1. In this case, the conviction of the appellant, was based on the testimony of the father of the deceased, Mr. Kovilraj (PW-1). The trial court found George guilty of offenses under Sections 294(b), 341, 302, and 506(ii) of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. However, the High Court, while granting benefit of doubt to the co-accused, upheld the conviction of George based on the same evidence, raising significant concerns about judicial consistency.

2. The Supreme Court reiterated that the testimony of an interested witness warrants heightened scrutiny. While such testimony is admissible, it must be free from conjectures and corroborated by other material evidence to ensure fairness.

3. The High Court's reasoning was found inconsistent. It acquitted the co-accused based on the unreliability of PW-1's testimony but convicted George using the same testimony. The Supreme Court noted that this approach was impermissible, as it rested on conjectures and surmises rather than robust evidence.

4. The recovery of the weapon, a knife allegedly used by the appellant, was also questioned. The Court observed that the recovery was made from an open place accessible to all, which undermines its evidentiary reliability.

Observations on Criminal Jurisprudence

The judgment highlights the principle that in Indian criminal jurisprudence, the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply. A witness may still be credible in part even if some of their testimony is disbelieved. However, this doctrine cannot be used selectively to justify convictions based solely on speculative conclusions.

Conclusion and Order

The Supreme Court acquitted George, holding that the conviction lacked sufficient corroborative evidence and was based on speculative reasoning. The judgment reinforces the need for caution and circumspection in evaluating the testimony of interested witnesses, ensuring that convictions are founded on concrete and reliable evidence.

Cause Title: George V/s The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: SLP(Crl.) No. 5902 of 2021

Date: December-13-2024

Bench: Justice B R Gavai, Justice K.V Viswanathan

[Read/Download order]