Summary
Amid communal tension in a Krishnagiri village, a man riding with his brother to court in 2004 was waylaid, blinded with chilli powder and hacked to death. Of thirteen accused, the trial court convicted two on the brother's sole eyewitness testimony; the Madras High Court acquitted one for a discrepancy in his arrest date but affirmed the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 341 IPC because he had surrendered later. The Supreme Court acquitted him: the brother was an interested witness with admitted enmity, his account had been disbelieved as against every other accused, placing him in the Vadivelu Thevar category requiring corroboration, and the High Court's distinction was perfunctory.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder can rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested eyewitness whose evidence has been disbelieved by the courts below as against the other co-accused implicated in the same account.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence for murder and wrongful restraint set aside for want of reliable, corroborated evidence. (¶¶ 1, 18)
Held
- The sole eyewitness is the deceased's brother with an admitted history of enmity with the accused; as held in Khema alias Khem Chandra, previous enmity supplies motive but equally raises the possibility of false implication. The trial court disbelieved his account as against eleven accused and the High Court as against another, so his testimony falls in the third category in Vadivelu Thevar requiring corroboration in material particulars, which was absent since no other witness saw the occurrence. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The High Court's reason for distinguishing the appellant from the co-accused it acquitted, namely that the appellant surrendered before the Magistrate nine days after the incident while the co-accused's arrest date was shown later, is wholly perfunctory and cannot sustain the conviction. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; Madras High Court judgment dated 31.03.2022 and the trial court's judgment dated 20.12.2018 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 341 IPC quashed; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case; pending applications disposed of.