Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed two criminal appeals against the conviction of Manikandan (accused no.2) and another appellant (accused no.1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Balamurugan. The prosecution case was that on 4 October 2007, the deceased went to accused no.1's house to complain about non-delivery of idlis, leading to an altercation. Accused no.1 brought a billhook and assaulted the deceased, first on the finger, then after a chase, on the neck, with accused no.2 holding the deceased. The trial court convicted both, and the High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5, all relatives of the deceased. Crucially, PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that the day before testifying, she and other witnesses were called to the police station and taught how to depose. The Court found this tutoring by police to be a blatant interference with the judicial process, rendering the evidence of these interested witnesses unreliable. Additionally, the prosecution withheld independent eyewitnesses who were available, warranting an adverse inference. The Court held that the prosecution case was seriously doubted and the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed, convictions set aside, and appellants acquitted. The Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu was directed to inquire into the conduct of the police officials involved in tutoring the witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Tutoring of Witnesses - Section 302 IPC - Prosecution witnesses were called to police station a day before their evidence and taught how to depose - Held that such conduct by police is shocking and amounts to gross misuse of power, rendering the evidence of interested witnesses unreliable (Paras 6-8). B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Adverse Inference - Withholding of independent witnesses - Prosecution failed to examine available independent eyewitnesses - Held that adverse inference must be drawn against prosecution, creating serious doubt about genuineness of case (Paras 7-8). C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Where prosecution case is tainted by tutoring of witnesses and withholding of independent evidence, accused are entitled to benefit of doubt - Held that conviction is unsustainable and appellants are acquitted (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable when the material prosecution witnesses were tutored by the police and independent witnesses were withheld.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned judgments and orders of the Sessions Court and High Court set aside. Appellants acquitted of all offences. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu directed to inquire into conduct of police officials who tutored witnesses and take appropriate action.
Law Points
- Tutoring of witnesses by police
- Interested witnesses
- Adverse inference for withholding independent witnesses
- Benefit of doubt
- Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC
