2026 Supreme(SC) 553

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Ponnusamy & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2493-2502 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 2503-2512 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Appellate courts cannot reverse a trial court acquittal solely on a difference of opinion; interference requires proof of perversity. Evidence from crime scene re-enactments is admissible as non-testimonial, corroborative data, provided it does not force the disclosure of personal incriminating knowledge.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 302, 34, 341, 109 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27, 65-B - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 161, 162, 313, 366 - Constitution of India - Article 20(3), 161 - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy - Circumstantial and electronic evidence - Admissibility and appreciation of witness testimony and scientific reports. (Paras 46, 66, 85, 95)

(B) Appellate Scope - Court sitting in appeal is prohibited from substituting its view for that of the trial court unless the impugned decision is plagued by perversity, illegality, or represents an impossible finding - Re-appreciation of evidence on record is not permissible merely because an alternative view is possible. (Paras 45, 99)

(C) Evidence - Crime Scene Re-enactment - Scientific re-enactment of a crime scene does not inherently amount to personal testimony violating protection against self-incrimination - Such demonstrations are permissible as corroborative, demonstrative evidence to analyze physical attributes and spatial conditions, provided they do not involve the extraction of confessional statements based on personal knowledge. (Paras 88, 90)

(D) Approver Testimony - Witness credibility - Contradictions between prior statements to police and subsequent court testimony by an approver do not invalidate the evidence when the transition from accused to witness involves a truthful disclosure and the testimony finds material independent corroboration - The objective of grant of pardon is to elicit fundamental facts which may have been concealed previously. (Paras 64, 65)

Facts of the case:
Prosecution alleged a conspiracy to assassinate the deceased, motivated by a long-standing property dispute. Key evidence included witness accounts, testimonies of an approver, money trails, and electronic records including calls and surveillance footage. The trial court convicted the accused based on substantive findings. The first appellate court reversed the conviction, doubting the witness credibility, the admissibility of re-enacted crime scenes under constitutional provisions, and questioning the chain of custody of electronic records. The state and complainant challenged this reversal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellate court failed to identify any manifest perversity in the trial court's assessment. It held that the testimonies of direct witnesses were consistent and corroborated. The court clarified that re-enactment of a crime scene for technical analysis of physical traits does not constitute testimonial compulsion, and electronic evidence, if handled improperly, does not automatically destroy a case founded on strong, independent oral and circumstantial evidence.

Issues: The central issues addressed were the standard of interference in appellate jurisdictions over acquittals, the constitutional protection against self-incrimination regarding crime scene re-enactments, the probative value of electronic records without unbroken chain of custody, and the legal reliability of an approver's testimony compared to previous police statements.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court must respect the trial court's findings if they are legally plausible, as the trial court possesses the advantage of observing witness demeanor. Crime scene re-enactments are held to be demonstrative evidence rather than testimonial, making them admissible to confirm physical traits. While chain of custody failures weaken electronic evidence, they do not invalidate a case supported by other independent proofs of conspiracy and commission of the crime.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction of the accused persons by the trial court restored.