Testimony of “injured witness” unreliable; Prosecution failed to establish the case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court
Case title – Periyasamy Vs The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 270 OF 2019 with CA No. 271 OF 2019
Decision on – March 18th, 2024
Quoram – Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol
Facts of the case
In the present case, the issue is regarding the death of two persons who were stabbed by A-1 at the instigation of A-2.
On 3rd March 2002, Dharmalingam (D1 deceased) after procuring liquor in an earlier completed transaction demanded more brandy on credit from the owners and workers of Saravana Wine Shop. A quarrel arose, and a showcase of the shop was smashed, and the bottles stored therein were damaged.
In this course of events, it is alleged that D-1 retrieved a knife and stabbed one Thangavel (one of the owners of the shop). Consequently, A-1, caused fatal injuries to D-1 and stabbed one Thangavel5 (D2 deceased). A-1 with a knife caused fatal injuries to D-1. He also stabbed Sakthivel (son of Muthuveeran) in his stomach repeatedly.
When D-2 intervened to prevent the attack, A-1 stabbed him as well. While D-1 and D-2 were being taken to the hospital, on the way, both succumbed to injuries.
Sakthivel, who was suffered the injuries, reported the incident to the Police Inspector at the Hospital. Based on his statement, FIR was registered. Upon investigation, A1 and A2 were charged under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.
The trial Court convicted A-1 under Section 302, IPC, for the murder of D-1 and D-2 and A2 under Section 109 of IPC for abetting the murder of D-1.
The Madras High Court subsequently confirmed the judgement and order of the Trial Court in convicting A1 and A2.
Issue – Whether the convictions handed down to A-1 and A-2 are established on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Contentions on behalf of A-1
The Counsel submitted that all witnesses testified were interested in the case’s outcome and therefore, were unreliable. He contended that the events unfolded were the result of a spur-of-the-moment quarrel in which the accused also sustained grievous injuries and thus pleaded an exception under right of self defence.
Contentions on behalf of A-2
It was argued on behalf of A-2 that his presence at the scene of the crime was never established. Four limbs of A-1’s arguments, i.e., delay in lodging the FIR; almost all witnesses qualifying as interested witnesses; there being no enmity between the involved persons; and the lack of independent witnesses, were adopted by A-2.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
The respondent had filed detailed submissions which attempted to discredit and rebut all the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons. In doing so, the State also relied on various judgments from this Court.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court analyzed the law relating to “right to self defence” and “interested witness”. It also examined the merit of the statements given by the witnesses and pointed out that the there was a needs to strike a balance between the “injured witness” and “interested witness”
The Court highlighting several lapses on the part of the prosecution in proving the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt noted that the conviction handed down by the Courts to A-1 and A-2 is not sustainable. Further, it held that the testimonies of the injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer are not reliable which rendered the prosecution case weak in the eyes of law.
The Court considering the submissions of both the parties and examining the evidence on record made the following observations –
- Examined private persons were interested witnesses, with inconsistencies amongst them;
- No independent witnesses were examined;
- There was a delay in filing the FIR;
- There were interpolations on record;
- There were numerous lapses in the investigation; and
- The medical and scientific evidence on record does not support the prosecution’s version of events.
In light of the above findings, the Court acquitted the appellants and set aside their conviction orders.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
