Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case Citing Faulty Investigation: Periyasamy vs. State (2024) INSC 212 (18 March 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 212

Judges: Hrishikesh Roy J., Sanjay Karol J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the prosecution’s case relies heavily on inconsistent witness testimonies and a flawed police investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Periyasamy vs. The State, ultimately acquitting the accused due to significant doubts about the prosecution’s evidence. The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, overturned the convictions, highlighting serious lapses in the investigation and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on March 3, 2002, at the Saravana Wine Shop in Neithalur Colony. Dharmalingam (D1) had an altercation with the shop owners and workers after demanding more brandy on credit. During the quarrel, a showcase was smashed, and bottles were damaged. It is alleged that D1 retrieved a knife and stabbed one of the shop owners, Thangavel. Following this, Periyasamy (A1) allegedly stabbed Dharmalingam (D1) fatally, and also stabbed Sakthivel (PW-1), son of Muthuveeran, and another person (D2), who intervened. Both D1 and D2 died from their injuries. Sakthivel (PW-1) reported the incident to the police, leading to the registration of FIR No. 87/2002. A1 and R. Manoharan (A2) were charged, with A2 accused of instigating A1.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Periyasamy (A1) for two counts of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and two counts of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. R. Manoharan (A2) was convicted for abetting one count of murder and two counts of attempt to murder under Sections 302 read with 109 and 307 read with 109 of the IPC, respectively. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld these convictions, noting that the absence of A2’s name in the FIR did not absolve him, and the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses proved his involvement. The High Court also dismissed arguments regarding the lack of medical evidence for PW-1’s surgery, the unexplained injuries of A1, and the non-examination of the wine shop owner.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder, stating, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 307, IPC: This section deals with attempt to murder, stating, “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
• Section 109, IPC: This section deals with punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment, stating, “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.”

Additionally, the judgment refers to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which places the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions to the general rule on the accused.

The right of private defense is also discussed, though not specifically defined in the IPC, its application is determined based on the facts of each case.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of A1 (Periyasamy):

• All the witnesses were “interested” and therefore unreliable. No independent witness was examined.
• There was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
• The medical evidence did not show that PW-1 underwent surgery.
• There was no prior animosity between the parties.
• The incident was a result of a spur-of-the-moment quarrel in which A1 also sustained injuries.
• A1 acted in private defense.

Arguments on behalf of A2 (R. Manoharan):

• His presence at the scene of the crime was not established.
• He adopted A1’s arguments regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the witnesses being “interested,” the lack of enmity, and the absence of independent witnesses.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that the convictions were valid based on the evidence presented.
• The State relied on various judgments from the Supreme Court to support its case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the convictions of A1 and A2 were sustainable, considering the facts, circumstances, and applicable law, and whether the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt was met.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Russel on Crime, 11th Edition Vol.I: The Court used this to understand the principle of private defense but did not apply it in the final decision.
• Raghbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Court used this to emphasize the burden of proof on the person claiming private defense.
• James Martin v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: The Court used this to explain the burden on the person pleading the right of private defense.
• Vidhya Singh v. State of M.P. [CITATION]: The Court used this to highlight that the right of private defense should not be narrowly construed.
• Darshan Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. [CITATION]: The Court used this to summarize the principles regarding the exercise of the right of private defense.
• Sukumaran v State [CITATION]: The Court used this as a reference to the summary of the principles regarding the exercise of the right of private defense.
• State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [CITATION]: The Court used this to differentiate between “interested” and “related” witnesses.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court used this to appreciate the evidentiary value of testimonies of interested witnesses.
• Rajesh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court used this to highlight the poor standards of police investigation and to refer to the recommendations of the Malimath Committee and the Law Commission of India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was heavily influenced by several factors that collectively undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court found that the testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable, particularly given their “interested” nature and the lack of independent corroboration. The unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the numerous lapses in the police investigation further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s version of events. The Court also noted the absence of crucial medical evidence and the presence of interpolations in the records, all of which contributed to a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the possibility of the incident being a spur-of-the-moment quarrel but did not find it sufficient to justify the convictions given the other flaws in the case. The Court also noted the lack of independent witnesses, despite the wine shop being in a crowded area. The cumulative effect of these factors led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court stated, “It is hard to conceive how the Trial Court concluded that despite being the first cousin of D -1 and himself a person injured in the incident, PW -1 was not an interested witness.” The court also observed, “The delay therefore renders the circumstances questionable.” And, “Various lapses such as these cumulatively affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution case, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.”

Key Takeaways

• The importance of independent witnesses in criminal cases, especially when the primary witnesses are “interested” or related to the victim.
• The critical role of a thorough and unbiased police investigation in ensuring justice.
• The need for consistency and reliability in witness testimonies, especially in cases involving serious crimes.
• The significance of medical evidence in corroborating claims of injury or assault.
• The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant lapses or inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that both appellants, Periyasamy (A1) and R. Manoharan (A2), be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that convictions cannot be sustained when the prosecution’s case is based on inconsistent testimonies of interested witnesses, lacks independent corroboration, and is marred by significant lapses in police investigation. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so will result in the acquittal of the accused. This judgment also reiterates the importance of thorough and unbiased police investigations.

Conclusion

In the case of Periyasamy vs. The State, the Supreme Court of India overturned the convictions of the accused, citing significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable witness testimonies, thorough police investigations, and the need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards required in criminal proceedings and the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring justice.