In a significant ruling of George v/s The State of Tamil Nadu & Others, the Supreme Court recently overturned the conviction of an accused in a murder case, highlighting serious inconsistencies in the evidence presented during trial. The case pertained to an incident that occurred on May 16, 2015, in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, during a church festival, resulting in the death of a young man.

The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 294(b), 341, 302, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the conviction was partially upheld by the High Court, which acquitted him under Section 506(ii) IPC while retaining the other charges. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which ultimately acquitted him of all charges.

The case originated from an altercation during a church event, as detailed in FIR No. 224 of 2015. The complainant, Kovilraj (PW-1), alleged that his son, Praveen Kumar, was attacked by three accused, including the appellant. According to the complainant, the attack was fueled by previous animosity stemming from a church election.

The incident occurred when the deceased, along with friends, was chatting outside the church at midnight. The accused allegedly confronted him, leading to a heated argument. While the deceased attempted to escape, he was allegedly caught and fatally attacked with a knife by the appellant, as claimed by PW-1.

The prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimonies and material recoveries, to support its case. The trial court found the accused guilty, primarily relying on the testimony of PW-1, the father of the deceased.

On appeal, the High Court acquitted the co-accused (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) by granting them the benefit of doubt. The court found PW-1's testimony unreliable concerning their involvement, as the crime scene was approximately 300 meters from the church, raising doubts about his ability to witness the events clearly.

However, the same testimony was deemed sufficient to convict the appellant. The High Court reasoned that, based on the sequence of events, the appellant alone could have inflicted the fatal injury.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, found the High Court's reasoning inconsistent. It noted that while the High Court had discredited PW-1's testimony for the co-accused, it had relied on the same testimony to convict the appellant. This contradiction formed the crux of the Court's decision to acquit the appellant.

Inconsistency in Witness Testimony: The High Court's acceptance of PW-1's testimony for one accused while rejecting it for others undermined the fairness of the judgment.

Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The recovery of the alleged murder weapon (a knife) was deemed insufficient, as it was retrieved from an open area accessible to all, reducing its evidentiary value.

Credibility of an Interested Witness: While testimony from interested witnesses (such as family members) is not inadmissible, it must be scrutinized with caution. The Court found PW-1's account unreliable in this case.

The judgment reaffirmed that a conviction cannot rest on conjectures or uncorroborated evidence, especially when the testimony in question raises significant doubts.

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The Court ordered his immediate release, provided he was not involved in any other cases.

This ruling underscores the importance of consistency and caution in evaluating evidence, especially in criminal cases where the stakes involve an individual's liberty. It serves as a reminder of the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, ensuring fairness at all levels of the judicial process.