23 May 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India on May 23, 2025, acquitted eleven individuals who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in a triple murder case from 2012, overturning a Madras High Court judgment. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, citing significant issues with the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the handling of corroborating evidence. The accused, who had been convicted for offenses including murder and attempted murder, had already served over nine years in prison.

The case, Agniraj & Others v/s State Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police CB-CID (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1686-1688 of 2023), challenged the Madras High Court's decision dated March 21, 2019, which had upheld the convictions. The appellants were initially convicted under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Accused Nos. 1 and 9 to 11 were also convicted under Section 147 of the IPC, while Accused Nos. 2 to 8 were convicted under Section 148 of the IPC.

Background of the Case:

The incident occurred on November 14, 2012, when Deceased No. 1 (Kathiresan), his son Prasanna (Deceased No. 2), daughter Nikila (PW-9), and driver (Deceased No. 3) were attacked while traveling in a Scorpio car. The prosecution alleged that a group of 30 accused persons, led by Accused No. 1, attacked the car and its occupants with weapons and attempted to set them on fire. This resulted in three deaths and serious injuries to PW-9. The motive was attributed to a political rivalry stemming from the 2011 Panchayat Board elections, where PW-1's wife had defeated Accused No. 1's wife for the President post.

Eyewitness Testimonies Under Scrutiny:

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the testimonies of the three key eyewitnesses: PW-1 (Krishnan), the informant; PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu), a "chance witness"; and PW-9 (Nikila), the minor daughter of Deceased No. 1.

• PW-1 (Krishnan): The Court found significant inconsistencies and exaggerations in PW-1's testimony. Despite claiming to have narrated the incident to police officers at the scene, his written complaint was filed nearly two hours later at the police station, accompanied by an advocate and political party members. The initial complaint named 36 persons, but 15 were later dropped with PW-1's consent, who admitted to being "nervous" and "exaggerated" due to political rivalry. The Court also doubted his ability to clearly see the incident from his hiding spot in the dark. The possibility of the complaint being filed after deliberation with AIADMK supporters due to political rivalry was also noted.
• PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu): The Court found PW-2's testimony highly suspicious due to a "gross delay" of over 43 days in reporting the incident to the police. His explanation of being scared and "becoming wise" after a Christmas sermon was not found convincing. The prosecution's failure to examine Abdul Rahman, who was allegedly with PW-2 during the incident, led the Court to draw an adverse inference.
• PW-9 (Nikila): The Court highlighted that the Trial Court failed to conduct a preliminary voir dire examination to ascertain the minor witness's capacity to understand questions and the importance of an oath before recording her testimony. The Court emphasized that child witnesses are susceptible to tutoring, and PW-9's admission that her mother told her the details of what happened raised the possibility of tutoring. The absence of a test identification parade further weakened her identification of the accused in court.

Flaws in Corroborating Evidence:

The Supreme Court also found issues with the corroborating evidence:

• Fingerprint Evidence: The Court noted that no Mahazar was drawn when fingerprints were allegedly lifted from the Scorpio car, nor were the photographs of these fingerprints exhibited in court. Similarly, no Mahazar was recorded when the accused's fingerprints were taken. This procedural lapse rendered the fingerprint evidence unreliable.
• Weapon Recovery: The Court pointed out inconsistencies in the recovery of weapons, noting that multiple weapons were allegedly recovered from the same locations at different times, raising doubts about the authenticity of these recoveries.

Appellate Jurisdiction and Misreading of Evidence:

The State argued that the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution, should not re-appreciate evidence in cases with concurrent findings of conviction. While acknowledging these constraints, the Supreme Court asserted its ability to interfere when the assessment of evidence by lower courts is "vitiated by misreading of the evidence" or when "striking features in the evidence which demolish the prosecution's case" have been overlooked. The Court concluded that both the Trial Court and the High Court had "completely brushed aside" and "misread" the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, ignoring "very striking features" that made their testimonies unbelievable. The Court stated that convictions could not be sustained solely on the basis of the alleged recovery of weapons.

Given the significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. All appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately, unless required in any other case.

Section 147., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 149., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 307., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860