Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1728
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. V. Anjaria, J
Talari Naresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No._______ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.13614 of 2025) | Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2017 | SC/ST S.C. No.51 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Ramakrishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy
For the Respondents: Kumar Vaibhaw, Devina Sehgal
A conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness, contradicted by a hostile witness and undermined by unexplained discrepancies in medical evidence, is not sustainable.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 323 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) - Conviction for murder and caste-based abuse - Appeal against conviction - Evidence of interested witnesses - Credibility of hostile witnesses - Medical evidence discrepancies - Conviction set aside. (Paras 5.2.2-5.2.3, 6-8.4.2)
(B) Evidence - Interested witnesses - Partisan witnesses - Their testimony must be scrutinized with caution - Discrepancies and contradictions in their evidence, especially when other evidence demolishes it, renders it unreliable. (Paras 7.4, 8.2)
(C) Evidence - Hostile witness - Testimony is admissible and can be relied upon to the extent it is found dependable and corroborated by other reliable evidence - Such evidence can also be used to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal. (Paras 8.3-8.4.2, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Shiva Shankar by beating him with a stone, and for caste-based abuse against the victim's mother. The prosecution case was that the deceased had eloped with the appellant's sister, and a Panchayat had decided that the deceased should leave the village. When the deceased returned, the appellant attacked him. The Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellant, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the prosecution evidence weak, contradictory, and crumbling. The mother of the deceased (PW1) was an interested witness with inconsistencies. The alleged eyewitness (PW3) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Witnesses PW4 and PW5 denied any Panchayat. Medical evidence contained unexplained discrepancies. The place of offence was a busy main road, yet no independent witnesses were examined. The conviction was set aside.
Issues: Whether the conviction was sustainable given the unreliable and contradictory prosecution evidence, including the testimony of an interested witness, a hostile witness, and discrepancies in medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of an interested witness must be scrutinized with extra caution, and when it is contradicted by other evidence and contains discrepancies, it loses reliability. The testimony of a hostile witness, while admissible, can be used to discredit the prosecution case if it inspires credibility. The occurrence and genesis of the incident were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction; leave granted; confirmation of conviction by high court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution case: elopement, panchayat, murder by stone, casteist abuse. (Para 3) |
| 3. survey of evidence: eyewitnesses, hostile witness, medical discrepancies. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. postmortem report: not substantive evidence; requires corroboration. (Para 6) |
| 5. prosecution case demolished: interested witness, hostile witness, no panchayat evidence. (Para 7) |
| 6. law on evidence of interested and hostile witnesses. (Para 8) |
| 7. hostile witness testimony can support acquittal; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
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, 18601Hereinafter, “IPC”. and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892Hereinafter, “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, IPC, 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-PW1, 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 belo
