09 May 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Renuka Prasad v. The State, Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189-3190 of 2023, 3399, 85-86 of 2024, delivered a judgment on May 9, 2025, overturning the High Court's conviction of the accused (A1 to A6) and restoring the acquittal by the Trial Court. The case, presided over by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, highlighted significant failings in the prosecution's case, primarily due to a large number of hostile witnesses and reliance on inadmissible evidence.

The prosecution's case revolved around the brutal murder of an individual on April 28, 2011, allegedly orchestrated by A1 due to an ongoing sibling rivalry over inherited assets. A1, along with employees A2 to A4, reportedly engaged A5 and A6 through Advocate A7 to commit the murder. The deceased was hacked to death in front of his son, PW8.

A critical aspect of the trial was the widespread hostility of witnesses. Out of 87 witnesses, 71 turned hostile, including the crucial eyewitness, PW8, the son of the deceased, who failed to identify the assailants despite having lodged the First Information Statement (FIS). Other key witnesses, such as PW1 and PW9, who were supposedly present immediately after the incident, also denied their prior statements or failed to identify the accused. Even the deceased's brother (PW2), uncle (PW3), and wife (PW10), who were examined to prove motive, did not support the prosecution's claims of active enmity between the deceased and A1. PW4, A1's brother and a star witness for the motive, denied any longstanding enmity and even disowned a letter allegedly written by him complaining about A1.

The Supreme Court heavily criticized the High Court's reliance on Section 161 statements (statements made to the police during investigation) as affirmed by investigating officers (PW83, PW84, PW87), especially when the witnesses themselves had turned hostile in court. The Court reiterated that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can only be used for contradiction, not as substantive evidence to establish the prosecution's narrative of motive, conspiracy, or preparation.

Furthermore, the Court found fault with the High Court's acceptance of voluntary statements from the accused (A3, A5, A6) regarding the crime and the pointing out of places where conspiracy discussions and money transfers allegedly occurred. Citing

Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor, the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows only for the admission of information that distinctly relates to a fact discovered as a consequence of the information, not the confession of the crime itself. In this case, no tangible objects were recovered from the sites pointed out, thus rendering the confessions inadmissible under Section 27.

Regarding the recoveries, such as cash from A2 to A6 and blood-stained clothes and machetes from A3, the Court noted that these were not properly connected to the crime or the accused through independent evidence. The FSL report confirming human blood of 'O' group on the recovered dress materials and machetes, matching the deceased's blood group, was deemed insufficient for conviction without a clear connection established between the items, the accused, and the crime. The Court also observed that the purported confession of A3 regarding the handing over of clothes and machetes by A5 and A6 was "history" that needed to be cogently proved by independent evidence (aliunde), which was not done.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reversal of the acquittal was based on "mere surmises and conjectures" and a reliance on the Investigating Officers' regurgitated Section 161 statements and inadmissible voluntary statements of the accused. The Court expressed its "heavy heart for the unsolved crime" but firmly stated that a conviction cannot be sustained in the "total absence of legal evidence" and that a "purely moral conviction" is anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

Consequently, the Criminal Appeals were allowed, the convictions were reversed, and the accused were ordered to be released immediately if in custody and not required in any other case.

Section 161., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 162., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 27, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872