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

In a significant ruling on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Accused Nos. 1 to 11 in the case of Agniraj & Others v/s State Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police CB-CID, overturning their conviction by the Madras High Court at Madurai. The appeals, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1686-1688 of 2023, were heard by the Honourable Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and the Honourable Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The Court's decision highlighted serious concerns regarding the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts, despite the State's arguments on the limited scope of Article 136 of the Constitution for re-appreciating evidence in concurrent findings of fact.

Background of the Case:

The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on November 14, 2012, alleging offenses under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The prosecution’s case revolved around a violent incident on the night of November 14, 2012, where the car carrying Deceased No. 1 (Kathiresan), his son Prasanna (Deceased No. 2), and daughter Nikila (PW-9), along with their driver (Deceased No. 3), was attacked by a group of individuals following a collision with a truck. Three individuals died, and PW-9 sustained serious injuries. The motive was linked to a long-standing political rivalry between the family of Accused No. 1 and the family of PW-1, whose wife had defeated Accused No. 1's wife in the 2011 Panchayat Board elections.

The Trial Court, on September 29, 2015, convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 11 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting Accused Nos. 12 to 21. The High Court of Madras at Madurai upheld these convictions, dismissing all appeals.

Supreme Court's Scrutiny of Witness Testimonies:

The Supreme Court meticulously re-examined the testimonies of the three primary prosecution witnesses: PW-1 (Krishnan), the informant and alleged eyewitness; PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu); and PW-9 (Nikila), a minor.

• PW-1 (Krishnan): The Court found PW-1's testimony unreliable due to "material embellishments and exaggerations". It was noted that PW-1 claimed to have informed police officers at the scene, but no statement was recorded then. Instead, he went to the police station almost two hours later with an advocate and political party members to file a written complaint. Furthermore, PW-1 initially named 36 accused persons but later agreed to drop 15 names, and his statements regarding the number of attackers were inconsistent. The Court also raised doubts about his ability to witness the incident clearly from his hiding spot, especially given the time of night. The Court concluded that PW-1's evidence "does not inspire confidence".
• PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu): The Court noted a significant delay of over one and a half months in recording PW-2's statement, for which the prosecution offered no satisfactory explanation. The absence of Abdul Rahman, who was allegedly with PW-2 and witnessed the incident, also led the Court to draw an "adverse inference" against the prosecution.
• PW-9 (Nikila): A crucial point of contention was the testimony of PW-9, who was 7 years and 11 months old at the time of the incident and examined at the age of 9. The Court observed that no preliminary questions (voir dire examination) were asked to ascertain her understanding of the importance of an oath, making her testimony "very vulnerable" and susceptible to tutoring, especially since she stated her mother had told her details of the incident. Additionally, no test identification parade was conducted.

Issues with Corroborating Evidence:

The Supreme Court also cast doubt on the corroborating evidence presented by the prosecution:

• Fingerprint Evidence: The fingerprint evidence, purportedly linking Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to the Scorpio car, was deemed unreliable. PW-46, the photographer, denied taking the photographs of the fingerprints, and these photographs were not exhibited. Crucially, no

mahazar (a document recording findings during an investigation) was prepared when the fingerprints were taken from the car or the accused, which the Court stated "goes to the root of the matter".

• Recovery of Weapons: Contradictions were found in the recovery of weapons. The prosecution claimed aruvals were recovered from the same bush at different times on December 5, 2012, at the instance of Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 6. Similarly, a knife and aruval were allegedly recovered at different times on December 10, 2012, from the same location at the instance of Accused Nos. 4 and 5. The Court suggested that conviction solely on the basis of such recoveries was not permissible.

Appellate Jurisdiction and Conclusion:

Addressing the State's preliminary objection regarding the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136, the Court clarified that while it generally does not re-appreciate evidence in cases with concurrent findings, it can interfere if the lower courts' assessment is "vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice". The Court emphasized that it found the Trial Court and High Court had "misread the evidence of these material prosecution witnesses" and "ignored very striking features of the prosecution's case and evidence".

Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence on record was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The appellants (Accused Nos. 1 to 11) were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case. This judgment underscores the Supreme Court's role in ensuring justice by intervening in cases where lower courts' findings are based on a flawed appreciation of evidence, even in cases of concurrent conviction.

Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 147., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 148., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 307., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984  

Section 136, Constitution of India - 1950  

Constitution of India, 1950