SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Manikandan - Appellant
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1609 Of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 407 Of 2019
Decided On : 05-04-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – PWs were called to Police Station and were taught to depose in a particular manner – This is a blatant act by police to tutor material prosecution witnesses – All of them were interested witnesses – Their evidence will have to be discarded as there is a distinct possibility that said witnesses were tutored by police on earlier day – This kind of interference by Police with judicial process is shocking – This amounts to gross misuse of power by Police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witness – This conduct becomes more serious as other eyewitnesses, though available, were withheld – Adverse inference must be drawn against prosecution – There is a serious doubt created about genuineness of prosecution case – Benefit of this substantial doubt must be given to appellants – Impugned judgments and orders set aside and appellants acquitted of offences alleged against them. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019 is accused no.1, and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2011 is the accused no.2. Trial Court convicted both appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. By impugned judgment, High Court has confirmed conviction and life sentence of the appellants.
Findings of Court:
Director General of Police of State of Tamil Nadu shall cause an enquiry to be made into conduct of police officials of tutoring PW-1 to PW-5 at concerned Police Station. Appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring officials in accordance with the law.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Oka, J.) :
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019 is the accused no.1, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2011 is the accused no.2. The Trial Court convicted both the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and life sentence of the appellants.
2. We are referring to the prosecution case in brief. The name of the deceased is Balamurugan. He was staying with his parents – PW-l Mahalingam and PW-2 Veerammal. According to the prosecution case, the deceased had instructed accused no.1 to deliver idlis at his home. On 4th October 2007, at about 9 pm, the deceased came home and enquired with his mother PW-2 whether accused no.1 had delivered the idlis. On learning that accused no.1 had not delivered the idlis, he immediately went out and reached the house of accused no.1. It appears that there was a commotion due to his altercation with the accused no.1. According to the prosecution case, after hearing the commotion, PW-2 and PW-3 (the brother-in-law of the deceased) rushed to the spot. Accused no.2 was present at the spot. After that, accused no.1 entered his house, brought with him a billhook and assaulted the deceased with the billhook. The first blow fell on the right index finger of the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased ran away to the nearby garden of one Karunanidhi. The accused followed him. The accused no.2 held the deceased, and accused no.1 assaulted the deceased with the billhook on his neck. Both the accused fled after that. According to the prosecution case, PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4 (sister of PW-1), and PW-5 (son of PW-4) witnessed the incident.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the first information report shows that the incident occurred at 10.30 pm. However, from the approximate time of death mentioned in the post-mortem notes, it appears that the incident must have happened before 7 pm. His second submission is that though other independent eyewitnesses were available, the prosecution had chosen to examine only the witnesses closely related to the deceased who were interested and tutored witnesses. Therefore, their testimony deserves to be discarded. Without prejudice, his further submission is that it was the deceased who went to the house of accused no.1 to enquire about the failure of accused no.1 to deliver idlis at his home. The fight started only because the deceased went to the house of accused no.1. He submitted that the post-mortem notes show that the deceased sustained one cut injury on his neck and one minor injury to his finger. He further submitted that there was a sudden fight between the deceased and the accused no.1, and in their sudden fight, without any premeditation, the accused no.1 assaulted the deceased. He would, therefore, submit that this is a case where Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC will apply, and thus, it will amount to an offence under Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC. He relied upon various decisions of this Court in the cases of:-
(ii) Ram Manohar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1084
(iii) Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. v. the State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 528
(iv) Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 327
(v) Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 4 SCC 653
(vi) Prakash Chand v. State of H.P., (2004) 11 SCC 381 and
(vii) Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State urged that the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 is free of any material contradictions and omissions and, thus, inspires confidence. He submitted that the fact that accused no.1, after a dispute with the deceased, entered his house, brought billhook and then assaulted the deceased
Police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witness – Adverse inference must be drawn against prosecution.
The court reaffirmed that specific overt acts are crucial for conviction in homicide cases, while witness reliability, particularly regarding tutoring, significantly impacts the assessment of evidenc....
The reliability of eye-witnesses, the extension of exception 4 to Sec. 300 of the IPC, and the distinction between Sec. 302 and Sec. 304 - Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
Failure of prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant in a murder case.
Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.