1. Murder of an employee — Alleged conspiracy and hacking — Trial Court acquittal — High Court conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, IPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 799
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Renuka Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189-3190 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 3399 of 2024, Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. P.V. Harikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shrey Kuldeep Brahmbhatt, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. P.V. Harikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shrey Kuldeep Brahmbhatt, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and conspiracy – Statements made by IOs regarding motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as prosecution story, as discernible from Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of Cr.P.C.
(2) Disclosure statement – Information or disclosure should necessarily be free from any element of compulsion and only so much of information as relating distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved and nothing more.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 120-B – Murder and conspiracy – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Statements made by IOs regarding motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as prosecution story, as discernible from Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. – Merely because IOs spoke of such statements having been made by witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility, enabling acceptance, unless witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission or instances from which conspiracy could be inferred as also preparation, established beyond reasonable doubt – Merely because story came out of mouth of IO, it cannot be believed and a legal sanctity given to it, higher than that provided to Section 161 statements under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. – There was no incriminating material found from Pickup van connecting this vehicle to crime – Recovered dress materials had blood stains on it which were analyzed to be human blood of ‘O’ group and post-mortem certificate indicates deceased to be of ‘O+’ group – This alone cannot implicate accused since there should be a clear connection established of recovered items with accused and crime – Even Mahazar did not carry out a proper inventory, of cash recovered – Narration about conspiracy and money transactions are not admissible and mere pointing out of two sites does not lead to any discovery of fact, when narration is eschewed – High Court has egregiously erred in convicting accused on evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on story scripted by prosecution without any legal evidence being available – No reason to sustain conviction entered by High Court, reversing order of acquittal – Accused acquitted. (Paras 26, 28, 29, 38, 39, 47, 49 and 50)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Recovery made under Section 27 have to be necessarily connected to crime and accused, failing which recovery is of no consequence – Confession can only be with respect to discovery of a fact leading to recovery of a material object and cannot be with respect to any confession as to actual crime – Information or disclosure should necessarily be free from any element of compulsion and only so much of information as relating distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved and nothing more. (Paras 13 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery. Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye-witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses. Even a young boy, crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify assailants.
Findings of Court:
Accused shall be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case and if already released on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court's reversal of acquittal — Dispute over reliability of police testimony and admissibility of Section 161 statements and Section 27 recoveries. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. High Court erroneously relied on inadmissible Section 161 statements and unlinked recoveries — Lack of independent evidence to prove motive, conspiracy, or identity of assailants. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 38 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
4. Section 161 statements are not substantive evidence — Recoveries under Section 27 require a proven link to the crime — Acquittals are restored if evidence is insufficient. (Para 25 , 32 , 33 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court's order of acquittal restored — Accused released. (Para 50 , 51 )
6. Can statements made to police under Section 161 CrPC be used as substantive evidence if the witness turns hostile?
No. Section 161 statements are not substantive evidence and can only be used for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker under Section 162 CrPC. Testimony of Investigating Officers affirming such statements cannot substitute for the witness's testimony in court. (Para 14 , 17 , 25 , 26 )
7. What is the scope of admissibility for discoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Only the information relating distinctly to the fact discovered, such as the place of concealment, is admissible. Information regarding the crime itself or past history of the object is inadmissible. The discovered object must be independently linked to the crime and the accused. (Para 13 , 32 , 33 , 36 )
8. When can the confession of a co-accused be used to convict another accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act?
A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence. The court must first marshal independent evidence; if that evidence is capable of belief but requires assurance, the confession may be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
9. What is the standard for an appellate court to reverse a trial court's order of acquittal?
The appellate court must be circumspect, as the presumption of innocence is fortified by the acquittal. It should only reverse the order if the trial court's view was absolutely unreasonable or if no other probable view exists. (Para 5 , 48 )
JUDGMENT :
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery. Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye-witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses. Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants.
2. The prosecution alleged that due to differences arising from sharing of assets of the father; an entrepreneur who set up several educational institutions, A1 and his brother, PW4, were at loggerheads. The deceased an employee of one of the institutions, later allotted to the share of A1, resigned to join an institution managed by PW4, after the division of assets. The enmity of A1 arises, according to the prosecution, due to the active involvement of the deceased in the sibling rivalry, aligning himself with PW4, to the hilt. A1 along with his employees A2 to A4 engaged A5 and A6, through A7, an Advocate, to murder the deceased. A5 and A6 is said to have carried out the brutal murder, hacking the deceased to death, in front of his son, PW8, at 07:45 pm on 28.04.2011. PW8, immediately contacted his relatives and the deceased was rushed to the hospital where he breathed his last at 08:40 pm on the same day.
3. The first information statement (FIS) was lodged by PW8, leading to the registration of the crime and the resultant investigation. As was said, 87 witnesses were led in trial to speak about the homicide, the motive, the meeting of minds leading to the conspiracy, the preparation, what transpired after the incident and the arrest, recovery, chemical analysis and so on and so forth; all in vain for most turned hostile, especially the ones who were relevant. The Trial Court acquitted the accused finding no support for the prosecution case from the large number of witnesses arrayed to prove the various aspects leading to the murder, all of whom, except the official witnesses, turned hostile. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted A1 to A6 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The acquittal of A7 by the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court.
4. A1 has filed one of the appeals in which Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the accused/appellant. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appeared in the other appeals filed by A2 to A6. Mr. Aman Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State. Heard both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the records.
5. The Division Bench at the outset, dealt with the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein this Court had set out the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal from an acquittal. The principles are trite; extract having been made in the impugned judgment, we would not repeat. We are tasked to find out whether the principles have been followed scrupulously by the Division Bench in setting aside the order of acquittal. Whether, while exercising the full power conferred in an appeal to review, reappreciate and consider the evidence led in the case, the Division Bench has been circumspect, keeping in mind the trite fundamental principle that the presumption of innocence available to the accused, under the general law, stands fortified and strengthened by reason of the order of acquittal. Whether, the Trial Court has been absolutely unreasonable in taking a view that there was insufficient evidence to bring home a conviction in the case and whe
