1. Murder and wrongful restraint — Conviction under Sections 302 and 341, IPC — Appeal against concurrent findings based on the testimony of an interested eye witness. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 714
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Nagaraj Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12764 of 2022)
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Important Points
In criminal cases, reliance solely on testimony from an interested witness without corroboration may not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence and Witnesses
Act Referred
Headnote
- Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 302 and 341 - The court discussed the evidence presented by witnesses, particularly the testimony of Narayanappa (PW-1), and emphasized the need for corroboration of witness testimony to establish guilt. The court also highlighted the principle that previous enmity can provide motive but may also lead to false implication, as well as the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged his conviction under IPC Sections 302 and 341 for the murder of Rajappa based on the prosecution's case that he waylaid and killed Rajappa due to previous enmity between their communities.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction solely based on the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration was not tenable in law, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.Issues:
The key issue was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that previous enmity can provide motive but may also lead to false implication, highlighting the need for reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases.Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed, quashing and setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence. He was acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends conviction is untenable as co-accused was acquitted based on the same witness — State argues concurrent findings of fact are not perverse. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Testimony of an interested witness with previous enmity requires corroboration if found unreliable regarding other accused — Distinction between co-accused based on arrest timing is perfunctory. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 )
4. Testimony of an interested witness with previous enmity, found unreliable regarding some accused, cannot form the sole basis of conviction without material corroboration. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence quashed — Appellant acquitted of all charges and set at liberty. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. How does previous enmity affect the evaluation of a witness's testimony in criminal trials?
Previous enmity is considered a double-edged sword; while it provides a motive for the crime, it simultaneously creates the possibility of false implication of the accused. (Para 13 )
7. When is the testimony of a single interested witness insufficient for a conviction?
When a witness is found unreliable regarding some accused persons, their testimony is categorized as neither wholly reliable nor unreliable, necessitating corroboration in material particulars by other reliable testimony. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Can a conviction be maintained based on a witness whose testimony was rejected to acquit co-accused?
If the testimony of the sole eye witness is found unreliable for some accused, the conviction of other accused based solely on that same uncorroborated testimony is not tenable in law. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31st March 2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2019, wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by accused No. 1, appellant herein, against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20th December 2018, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’), in S. C. No. 7 of 2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:
2.1. One Rajappa (the deceased) along with all other accused persons, including the appellant herein, hail from Oozhiyalam village in Krishnagiri district. It is pertinent to note that the deceased and the accused persons belong to different communities. Radha (PW3), wife of Rajappa, was the president of the local Outreach Women Self Help Group.
2.2. A portion of land in Oozhiyalam village was purchased by the aforesaid Self Help Group. To build a compound wall around the said land, a contract for building the same was given to the people hailing from the deceased’s community. Such an act inflamed tensions between the two communities and several quarrels ensued, one of which led to criminal cases being registered against both the parties in the Bagalur Police Station. Both the parties were facing prosecution in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hosur.
2.3. While the situation stood thus, Rajappa, on 14th September 2004 at around 10 AM, left his home on his motorcycle along with his elder brother Narayanappa (PW1) to depose before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hosur. On their way to Court, accused Nos. 1 to 5 waylaid them near a check post, quickly sprinkled chili powder on the face of Rajappa and hacked him to death. It is specifically alleged that the present appellant threw chili powder on Rajappa and subsequently used his sickle to deliver a blow on the left side of Rajappa’s head. After committing the crime, all the accused went back to the village and pelted stones at the house of Rajappa while loudly proclaiming that they had finished Rajappa off, and that other members of Rajappa’s family would meet the same fate too. In the meanwhile, Narayanappa(PW1), who had escaped from the place of occurrence, ran back to the village and informed Radha about the attack on Rajappa. Thereafter, they along with others, returned to the place of occurrence. In the meanwhile, the son of Koopaliappa, who is Rajappa’s brother, rushed to the Bagalur Police Station to lodge a complaint, whereas Koopaliappa (PW4) himself rushed to the check post where he found his brother Rajappa dead.
2.4 Thereafter, on the basis of the statement given by PW1 to Rajsekhar (PW11), the Village Administrative Officer, which was treated as a complaint, a case being Crime No. 251 of 2004 was registered at HUDCO Police Station on the same day, i.e. 14th September 2004, at around 1 PM, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the IPC, against five accused persons, including accused No. 1Nagaraja Reddy, the appellant herein. Muthamizh Mudalvan (PW16), the Investigating Officer (IO), prepared a mahazar report and, thereafter, conducted an inquest over the dead body of Rajappa. The dead body of Rajappa was then sent to Government Hospital, Hosur, where an autopsy was performed and the cause of death was determined to be injury to a vital organ, i.e. the brain. The IO, thereafter, arrested accused Nos. 2 to 5, with the date of their arrest being shown as 22nd September 2004. On the very next day, i.e. 23rd September 2004, the appellant herein surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Krishnagiri and, on 1st October 2004, he was taken into police custody.
2.5 During the course of investigation, the role of accused Nos. 6 to 13 came to the fore and they too were arrested, on
