1. Murder of a teacher involving multiple assailants using sickles and a ninja chain — Conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 148, and 341, IPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2094
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti and Another – Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2022
With
Kulasekarapandian – Appellant
Versus
P. Thilagavathy and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2033 of 2022
With
Biledy Ganesan @ Selvaganesan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2032 of 2022
With
Murugesan @ Shanmugasundaram – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2031 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Ms. Binisa Mohanty, AOR Mr. Rajesh Sen, Adv. Ms. Shibani Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Kamal Pundir, Adv. Mr. Abdullah, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Abhyuday Dhasmana, Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Mr. P. Krishnadevan, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. V.krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. K.s.badhrinathan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Ms. Binisa Mohanty, AOR Mr. Rajesh Sen, Adv. Ms. Shibani Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Kamal Pundir, Adv. Mr. Abdullah, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Abhyuday Dhasmana, Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Mr. P. Krishnadevan, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. V.krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. K.s.badhrinathan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
The court affirmed the High Court's decision to convict based on strong eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, establishing premeditated murder with common intention despite minor discrepancies in witness accounts.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 148, and 341 - Appeal against conviction for murder - High Court reversed acquittal of accused, convicting them to life imprisonment based on witness testimonies and evidence collected at the scene - The ruling emphasized that minor contradictions in witness statements did not undermine overall credibility. (Paras 1, 2, 41)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appellate standard of review facing lower court decisions - High Court's reversal of acquittal deemed appropriate based on comprehensive evaluation of evidence. (Paras 25, 52)
Facts of the case:
Victim was murdered in July 2007 following pre-existing feuds, where several accused attacked him using sickles and other weapons while witnesses observed the event, affirming their testimonies despite some being declared hostile. (Paras 3, 41)
Findings of Court:
High Court upheld the conviction based on strong eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and the prompt lodging of FIR, dismissing arguments for discrepancies in testimonies as insufficient to overturn the verdict. (Paras 42, 52)
Issues: The primary issue involved whether the High Court was justified in convicting the accused after reversing the trial court's acquittal based on the assessment of evidence, including witness reliability. (Paras 32, 38)
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that evidence presented and the existence of prior feuds significantly established motives for the accused, which, when coupled with the medical findings of injuries, evidenced complicity in a premeditated murder scheme. (Paras 51, 52)
Result: All appeals dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
How to evaluate conflicting eyewitness testimony and determine credibility when there are minor inconsistencies?
What is the standard for reversing an acquittal and upholding conviction in an appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C.?
What are the criteria for establishing premeditated murder with common intention based on evidence of motive, ocular testimony, and medical report?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to reversal of acquittal based on witness contradictions, physical evidence inconsistencies, delay in FIR forwarding, and reliability of related eyewitnesses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
3. Evaluation of ocular and medical evidence — Acceptance of related witnesses' testimony — Treatment of minor contradictions as embroidery — Corroboration of injuries via post-mortem report. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
4. Courts must sift truth from falsehood, treating minor inconsistencies or embellishments as embroidery that does not destroy the overall credibility of a prosecution case. (Para 35 , 37 , 50 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Conviction of appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC affirmed. (Para 52 , 53 )
6. How should courts treat minor contradictions or embellishments in the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
Courts should not nitpick every detail but consider the overall impression. Minor inconsistencies or embroidery added by witnesses, often due to fear of being disbelieved, do not justify rejecting the case if the core truth is established. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 50 )
7. Can the testimony of related or interested witnesses be the basis for conviction?
Yes. Being related to the victim does not automatically discredit a witness. Their evidence is acceptable if it is natural, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence, such as medical reports. (Para 46 )
8. Can the evidence of a witness declared hostile be used by the court?
Yes. The evidence of a hostile witness is not outright rejected but subjected to closer scrutiny; it can be utilized by either the prosecution or the defence if it supports their case. (Para 42 )
9. Does a delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate necessarily imply manipulation of the document?
No. If the delay is satisfactorily explained by evidence, such as the unavailability of the Magistrate, it is not fatal to the prosecution's case and does not automatically suggest manipulation. (Para 45 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEALS
1. These appeals, by special leave, take exception to the common appellate judgment and order dated 7th December, 2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
2. While allowing the appeal under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the widow of Patchaiperumal1 [victim] viz. PW-8 and reversing the finding of acquittal recorded by the relevant Sessions Court vide its judgment dated 1st September, 2009, the High Court sentenced the appellants Murugesan - A-1, Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti - A-2, Palavesaraj @ Palavesamuthu - A-3, Kulasekarapandian - A-4 and Biledy Ganesan @ Selvaganesan - A-10 to life imprisonment for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Sections 34 , 148, and 341, INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.2 [IPC] However, acquittal of the co-accused (A-5 to A-9 and A-11) was not disturbed by the High Court.
FACTS
3. The prosecution case was that at a gathering in the house of A-9 on 10th July, 2007, all the accused had planned the murder of the victim (disbelieved by both the courts). FIRs in cases pertaining to prior feuds between the families of the victim on the one hand and those of A-4 and A-9 on the other provided the motive. On 12th July, 2007 at about 1.00 p.m., the victim left the school (where he was a teacher) on his motorcycle and was heading home for lunch. PWs 1 (brother-in-law of the victim) and 2 (brother of the victim) were following the victim on a separate motorcycle. The victim was initially waylaid by A-3 and A-4. Striking a ninja chain against the motorcycle which the victim was riding, A-3 ensured that the victim was compelled to stop. A-1, A-2 and A-4 then attacked the victim with sickles. A-5, A-6 and A-8 to A-11 were also attributed the role of attacking the victim with sickles. While PWs 1 and 2 tried to intervene, they were threatened by the multiple accused of dire consequences. To save their lives, PWs 1 and 2 hid behind a tree and witnessed the ghastly attack on the victim. The victim died on the spot as a result of the injuries inflicted on him. He was then pushed into a field by the accused, whereafter some of them left in a car driven by A-7 while the rest ran away from the scene of crime. At around 2.00 p.m. complaint was lodged by PW-2. It was also signed by PW-1. An FIR (Ext. P-41) came to be registered. In the interregnum, PWs 1 and 2 had been to their village and informed family members of the crime. The FIR was sought to be made over to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate by a Head Constable (PW-26) on the same date (12th July, 2007). However, the Judicial Magistrate was not available on that date. PW-26, therefore, waited overnight and handed over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate at 5.30 a.m. on 13th July, 2007. The investigating officer (PW-32), however, undertook investigation immediately after the FIR was registered. He visited the scene of crime around 2.45 p.m. and prepared the observation mahazar. The ninja chain (MO-3) was recovered from the scene of crime. PW-32 also collected sample of blood-soaked earth and plain earth as well as clothes worn by the victim. Inquest report was prepared by about 6.00 p.m. A Head Constable (PW-25) received the dead body and handed over the same for post-mortem. The autopsy surgeon (PW-28) conducted autopsy of the victim around 11.00 a.m. on 13th July, 2007 and submitted his report (Ext. P-25). Although A-5 to A-12 were not named in the FIR, their names came to be included as additional accused based on further statements of PWs 1 and 2 recorded on 13th July, 2007. Upon arrest of A-5 and A-8 on 19th July, 2007 and 31st July, 2007, respectively, 6 sickles (3+3) were recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements. Such recovery was allegedly made in the presence of PWs 12 and 13; however, PW-13 along with PWs 2, 3, 5 and 6 turned hostile at the trial. Disclosure made by A-7 on 1st August, 2007 led to recovery of the Maruti car in the presence of PWs 14 and 15 (both of whom t
