Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Talari Naresh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2506 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13614 of 2025]
Decided On : 13-05-2026
(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 323 – Murder, hurt and casteist slur – Life imprisonment – Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence – Since in absence of corroboration postmortem report is not a substantive piece of evidence, testimony of medical expert assumes importance in establishing facts mentioned in postmortem report – Docter was not in a position to offer satisfactory and acceptable explanation regarding discrepancies and contradictions found in Postmortem Examination Report – Court is not expected to mechanically reject evidence of a witness on the ground that witness is a partisan witness or relative – Occurrence of incident itself could not be said to have been proved by prosecution – Genesis of incident and motive of crime were also not proved – In wake of such weak, contradictory and crumbling evidence, where prosecution miserably struggled to be finally unable to prove its case, conviction recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court is not sustainable – Conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 6, 6.1, 7.5, 10, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 11)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – A witness who has strong interest in result should not be allowed to be weighed on same scales with those who do not have such interest in the outcome – Treating these two categories at par, would open doors for court to arrive at a perverted or distorted truth – Departure from telling truth by a witness belonging to such category naturally leads to give rise to inconsistencies – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in testimony of a related or interested witness will have to be viewed in such context, and more particularly when other evidence on record sufficiently demolishes evidence of related or interested witness, its evidence would entirely lose its reliability to stand in support of prosecution. (Paras 8 and 8.2)
(C) Criminal Law – Hostile Witness – Testimony of a hostile witness is useful to the extent which it supports prosecution case – There is no legal bar to arrive at a finding of conviction on the basis of testimony of such hostile witness, if corroborated by other reliable evidence – When testimony of a hostile witness is admissible subject to be feeded by corroboration and conviction on that basis could be arrived at, reverse is also true as a canon of appreciation of evidence – As evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting accused, such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the purpose of acquitting accused, when what is testified by hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with other evidence on record, either ocular or documentary. (Paras 8.4, 8.4.2 and 9)
Facts of the case:
High Court confirmed conviction and sentence against appellant recorded by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and held appellant guilty of commission of offences under Sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted and shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in respect of any other offence.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as substantive evidence; requires corroboration or expert testimony (paras referencing postmortem evidentiary value and need for corroboration) (!) (!) - The court discusses how hostile/partisan witnesses can be weighed and used for conviction or acquittal when corroborated by other reliable evidence (paras 8, 8.4, 9; p_41–p_45) - The overall evidence in this case was deemed weak, with discrepancies in medical and ocular evidence, leading to acquittal and setting aside conviction and sentence (paras 2, 28–31, 46–50) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2017. Thereby, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the appellant recorded by learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in SC/ST S.C. No. 51 of 2014 and held the appellant guilty of commission of offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [Hereinafter “IPC”] and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2 [Hereinafter “SC/ST Act”]
2.1. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and was further required to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in respect of his conviction for the offence under Section 302, IPC. For the offence under Section 323, , the appellant was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the appellant came to be sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation to undergo three months simple imprisonment. In respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, he was further sentenced to imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further one-month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case was inter alia that on 12.05.2013 at around 8:30 in the morning, the deceased named Shiva Shankar, along with his friend Narendar-PW3 was passing nearby the house of the appellant. Noticing them, the appellant questioned about Shiva Shankar’s returning to the village. It was stated that earlier on 14.02.2013, deceased Shiva Shankar had eloped with appellant’s younger sister aged 18 years. They both, however, returned to the village on the very next day. It was stated that in view of the said incident of elopement, a Panchayat was held in the village and that it was decided in the Panchayat that deceased Shiva Shankar would go out of the village Ogipur, and the girl would stay at her parental house. In that view, Shiva Shankar went to stay at Ekmai Village of Basheerabad Mandal to start living with his maternal uncles-PW2 and another.
3.1. It was the further prosecution case that despite the aforesaid decision of the Panchayat, the deceased came back to village Ogipur to attend the wedding of his friend and when he was passing near the house of the appellant on the day of the incident, the appellant confronted him. It was stated that a quarrel took place between the appellant and the said Shiva Shankar, in a heat of temper. The appellant took a shabad stone sized 6 inches in length, 4 inches in width and 3 inches thick, and started beating Shiva Shankar with the said stone.
3.1.1. It is the prosecution case that Narendar-PW3 who had been accompanying Shiva Shankar went to the place of mother of the deceased named Padmamma-PW1 to inform her. Padmamma-PWl, having come to know about the incident, rushed to the scene of the offence. It was claimed that when she intervened, she also suffered injuries below her left eye. It was further stated that in course of these happenings, PW1 was abused by the appellant with a casteist slur.
3.1.2. PW1 took her son-injured Shiva Shankar to the Government Hospital, Tandur, where the injured was given first aid, thereafter, was advised to go to the General Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment. When Shiva Shankar was being shifted to the Hyderabad Hospital, he died on the way succumbing to his injuries.
3.1.3. The appellant as well as the deceased belonged to the same village Ogipur of Ranga Reddy District. The appellant was a member of the backward class community known as ‘Mudiraj’, whereas the deceased ca
(1) Murder – Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence.(2) Hostile Witness – As evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting accused, such evidence ....
The evidentiary value of hostile witnesses can support the prosecution case if found credible, notwithstanding the non-recovery of weapons or procedural lapses.
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Proof of fact – Law does not contemplate stitching pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable do....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to explain circumstances within their knowledge, especially when ....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and grievous hurt, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing guilt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
