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

The Supreme Court of India, on May 23, 2025, in Agniraj & Others v/s State Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police CB-CID., overturned the convictions of eleven individuals who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with a 2012 triple murder case in Tamil Nadu. The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, hearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1686-1688 of 2023, found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, citing significant issues with the credibility of eyewitnesses and the handling of corroborating evidence.

The appeals challenged a Madras High Court judgment from March 21, 2019, which had upheld the convictions of Accused Nos. 1 to 11 for offenses including murder (Section 302 IPC), attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) read with unlawful assembly (Section 149 IPC), and damage to public property. The accused had already served over nine years and four months in prison.

The Prosecution's Case and Alleged Flaws:

The incident, which occurred on November 14, 2012, involved an attack on a Scorpio car carrying Deceased No. 1 (Kathiresan), his son Prasanna (Deceased No. 2), and daughter Nikila (PW-9), along with their driver (Deceased No. 3). The prosecution alleged that a group of 30 accused persons, led by Accused No. 1, attacked the car occupants with weapons, resulting in three deaths and serious injuries to PW-9. The motive was attributed to a long-standing political rivalry between Accused No. 1's family and the family of PW-1, whose wife had won the Panchayat President election against Accused No. 1's wife in 2011.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the testimonies of the three primary eyewitnesses: PW-1 (Krishnan), the informant and brother of Deceased No. 1; PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu), a "chance witness"; and PW-9 (Nikila), the minor daughter of Deceased No. 1, who was seven years and eleven months old at the time of the incident.

Concerns over Witness Credibility:

• PW-1 (Krishnan): The Court noted significant inconsistencies and exaggerations in PW-1's testimony. Despite claiming to have narrated the incident to police officers at the scene, his statement was not recorded immediately. Instead, he went to the police station almost two hours later with an advocate and political party members to file a written complaint. The initial complaint named 36 persons, but 15 were later dropped with PW-1's consent, with the explanation that he was "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.
• 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. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine Abdul Rahman, who was allegedly with PW-2 and also witnessed the incident, leading the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.
• PW-9 (Nikila): Crucially, 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.

Flawed Corroborating Evidence:

The Supreme Court also found issues with the corroborating evidence presented by the prosecution:

• Fingerprint Evidence: The Court noted that no Mahazar (a document recording findings in the presence of witnesses) 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 "goes to the root of the matter" and 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.

Limited Appellate Jurisdiction and Misreading of Evidence:

The State had argued that the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution, should not reappreciate evidence in cases with concurrent findings of conviction. While acknowledging the self-imposed constraints on its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court asserted that it can 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.