22 July 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law  

This case involves the appeal of Pitchu Mani Pitchai Mani (A1) and Esakkimuthu (A2) against their conviction for murder under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. The Madras High Court had upheld their conviction and life sentences, which were initially imposed by the Trial Court.

Background of the Case:

The prosecution's case revolved around an alleged ongoing family feud as the motive for the murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu (the deceased). A1 is the son of Balasubramanian, who had previously reported the deceased to the police, leading to a past assault by the deceased on Balasubramanian. A2 is a relative of A1. The deceased was known to be a habitual drunkard with a criminal record, having been released from prison under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act just two months before the incident.

According to the prosecution, on April 14, 2013, A2 took the deceased to a TASMAC liquor shop on his motorcycle. The deceased's son (PW-1) and wife (PW-2) claimed to have grown suspicious and followed them on a bicycle, arriving at the shop around 12:30 PM. They stated they witnessed A2 signal A1, who then appeared and fatally attacked the deceased with a weapon. A1 and A2 then fled the scene.

Trial Court and High Court Decisions:

The Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 primarily based on the eyewitness testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, deeming them "natural, consistent, credible and unblemished," despite other witnesses turning hostile. The motive was considered established, and minor contradictions in recovery evidence were overlooked. The High Court concurred, finding no "material lapses" in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, particularly focusing on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, given their relationship to the deceased and the fact that they were the sole crucial witnesses.

The Court highlighted several major improbabilities and inconsistencies:

• Distance and Time Improbability: PW-1 himself stated the distance between their home and the TASMAC shop was approximately 16 kilometers. The prosecution's timeline suggested PW-1 and PW-2 covered this distance on a single bicycle with a 17-year-old boy and his middle-aged mother as pillion within a mere 30 minutes. The Court found this "exceedingly improbable," casting significant doubt on their presence at the crime scene.
• Unnatural Conduct of Eyewitnesses: The Court questioned why PW-1 and PW-2, despite actively witnessing the brutal attack, made no attempt to intervene or save the deceased. Furthermore, after the incident, they cycled all the way back home (16 km) before reporting the crime to the police, even though a police station was located en route. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for these "glaring loopholes."
• Lack of Corroboration: The Court noted that other alleged eyewitnesses (PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6), including customers and the shop manager, turned hostile and stated that four or five persons attacked the deceased, contradicting PW-1 and PW-2's account of two assailants.
• Medical Evidence and Other Possibilities: The post-mortem report indicated 26 injuries, which the Court deemed "unlikely to be caused by a sole assailant" and more consistent with an attack by a group. Considering the deceased's criminal background, the possibility of enmities with multiple individuals could not be ruled out.

Given these significant doubts regarding the presence and credibility of the key eyewitnesses, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The inherent improbability of the prosecution's story, coupled with the lack of independent corroboration and the questionable conduct of PW-1 and PW-2, led the Court to set aside the convictions.

Outcome: 

The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of both the Madras High Court and the Trial Court were quashed. The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately.

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860