Selective Reliance on Eyewitness Testimony Vitiates Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case - 2026-06-09

Madras High Court Overturns Murder Conviction, Citing Failure of "Indivisible" Prosecution Narrative

In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court has overturned the conviction of three individuals accused of murder, delivering a stern reminder that the justice system cannot operate on "selective" evidence. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan, ruled that when eyewitness testimony forms a single, indivisible narrative, it cannot be used to convict some defendants while being rejected for others without independent corroboration.

The Case Path: From Alleged Conspiracy to Acquittal

The prosecution’s case centered on the July 2021 murder of Rajini, a Scheduled Caste political functionary. The state alleged a pre-planned conspiracy fueled by caste-based animosity following a minor altercation involving a co-accused. According to the state, eyewitnesses saw the group violently attack the victim in a graveyard.

However, the trial court acquitted four of the seven original accused due to a lack of evidence, despite the prosecution relying on the exact same pool of eyewitnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) for the entire case. The remaining three—the appellants—were convicted and appealed to the High Court, challenging the trial court’s logic.

Broken Narratives and Procedural Failures

The appellants’ counsel argued that the trial court committed a legal error by "picking and choosing" which parts of the eyewitness testimony to believe. The High Court agreed, noting that the prosecution's witnesses were not only inconsistent regarding the number of injuries but also contradicted official documents like the Accident Register.

Other critical failures noted by the Bench included: * The Conspiracy Paradox: The court found the evidence of alleged conspirators to be "unnatural," noting that their testimony was recorded after an inordinate delay and failed to show they took any logical action despite having prior knowledge of an imminent threat. * Procedural Breach: The trial court heavily relied on evidence from a separate trial ( S.C. 33 of 2021 ) to convict the appellants. Crucially, this evidence was never put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ). The High Court slammed this as a "strange" procedure that violated the right of the accused to offer an explanation. * FIR Ambiguity: The court observed a significant, unexplained delay in both the registration of the FIR and its transmission to the jurisdictional Magistrate, creating a "scope for embellishment."

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling emphasized deep skepticism toward the prosecution’s handling of the case:

> "In the considered opinion of this Court, such selective acceptance of evidence is impermissible in the facts of the present case, where the testimony is indivisible and attributes specific overt acts to each of the accused in one continuous transaction."

> "It is a settled principle of law that mere existence of motive cannot, by itself, give rise to an inference of conspiracy in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence."

> "The said non-indication of the incriminating material during the 313 Cr.P.C. questioning would vitiate the conviction."

> "Once the foundational aspects of the prosecution case become doubtful, the entire edifice cannot be sustained."

A Lesson in Reasonable Doubt

By setting aside the conviction, the High Court reiterated the bedrock principle of criminal jurisprudence: the burden remains entirely on the prosecution to prove guilt, and any reasonable doubt must mandate acquittal.

The decision sends a clear signal to trial courts across the state: judicial scrutiny must be comprehensive. When the "foundation of the prosecution case" is riddled with inconsistencies—such as unexplained delays, missing forensic links, and procedural lapses—it is unsafe to allow a conviction to stand on the basis of a fractured narrative. The appellants are now free, and their bail bonds have been discharged.