Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Inconsistent Witness Testimony: George vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) INSC 974 (13 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 974

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a person be convicted of a crime when the key witness’s testimony is considered unreliable for other individuals involved in the same incident? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the reliability of witness testimony and the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The court overturned the conviction of an accused, emphasizing the need for consistent and credible evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with the opinion authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on the night of May 15-16, 2015, in Ananthapuram, Tamil Nadu. Mr. Kovilraj (PW-1), a church member, reported that his son, Praveen Kumar, was attacked and killed following a verbal altercation. The altercation involved the appellant, George, and two other individuals, Rajarathinam and Albert. According to PW-1, the conflict stemmed from a prior dispute related to church elections. On the night of the incident, the accused confronted Praveen Kumar, leading to a chase and ultimately, a fatal knife attack by George, while the other two held the deceased. Praveen Kumar was taken to the hospital but was declared dead. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Sathankulam Police Station on May 16, 2015.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after examining 19 witnesses and considering the evidence, convicted George under Sections 294(b), 341, 302, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). George was sentenced to imprisonment for various terms, including life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this decision, George appealed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Sections 294(b), 341, and 302 of the IPC but acquitting George under Section 506(ii) of the IPC. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, George then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• ✓ Section 294(b) of the IPC: Deals with obscene acts and songs causing annoyance to others.
• ✓ Section 341 of the IPC: Addresses wrongful restraint.
• ✓ Section 302 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• ✓ Section 506(ii) of the IPC: Concerns criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel):

• ✓ The High Court erred in convicting the appellant based solely on the testimony of Kovilraj (PW-1), when the same testimony was deemed unreliable for the other accused (Rajarathinam and Albert).
• ✓ The High Court disbelieved PW-1’s testimony regarding the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3, stating that it was unnatural and that PW-1 could not have witnessed the incident due to the distance from the Church.
• ✓ The conviction of the appellant based on the same evidence that was deemed unreliable for the other accused is inconsistent and not sustainable.
• ✓ The recovery of the knife (M.O.-1) was from an open place accessible to all, and therefore, it cannot be used to solely base the conviction.

State’s Arguments (Shri N.R. Elango, learned Senior Counsel):

• ✓ The State argued that there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court, and therefore, no interference is warranted by the Supreme Court.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained when it is based solely on the testimony of a witness (PW-1), whose evidence was deemed unreliable by the High Court for the other accused persons involved in the same incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following:

Cases:

• ✓The Court noted that a conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a witness.
• ✓The Court also reiterated that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

Legal Provisions:

• ✓ Section 294(b) of the IPC: Deals with obscene acts and songs causing annoyance to others.
• ✓ Section 341 of the IPC: Addresses wrongful restraint.
• ✓ Section 302 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• ✓ Section 506(ii) of the IPC: Concerns criminal intimidation.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The principle that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness was acknowledged, but the Court emphasized the need for the testimony to be reliable and consistent.
• ✓ The principle that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian criminal jurisprudence was reiterated.
• ✓ The Court used the legal provisions of the IPC to evaluate the charges against the accused, ultimately overturning the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistency in the High Court’s approach to the evidence of PW-1. The fact that the High Court found PW-1’s testimony unreliable for accused Nos. 2 and 3 but relied on the same testimony to convict the appellant weighed heavily in the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court also noted that the recovery of the knife from an open place did not provide sufficient ground for conviction. The Court emphasized the need for a consistent and reliable approach to witness testimony, particularly in criminal cases where the liberty of an individual is at stake.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that when a witness’s testimony is deemed unreliable for some accused individuals, it cannot be used to convict another accused in the same incident. The Court highlighted that the High Court’s approach was based on conjectures and surmises, rather than on a consistent evaluation of the evidence. The Court also noted that the recovery of the knife from an open place did not provide sufficient ground for conviction.

“…the High Court, on the basis of very same evidence of Kovilraj (PW -1), has believed it qua the appellant herein and confirmed his conviction.”

“…the said finding is based purely on conjectures and surmises.”

“…the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Inconsistent witness testimony can lead to the acquittal of an accused, especially when the same testimony is deemed unreliable for other accused persons involved in the same incident.
• ✓ Courts must scrutinize the testimony of interested witnesses with greater caution and circumspection.
• ✓ Convictions cannot be based on conjectures and surmises, but must be based on reliable and consistent evidence.
• ✓ Recovery of material objects from open places accessible to all may not be sufficient evidence for conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when it is based solely on the testimony of a witness whose evidence is deemed unreliable for other accused individuals involved in the same incident. This judgment reinforces the principle that witness testimony must be consistent and reliable, particularly in criminal cases. It also highlights the importance of scrutinizing the evidence of interested witnesses with caution. This case clarifies that a conviction cannot be based on conjectures and surmises and that recovery of material objects from open places may not be sufficient for conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and acquitted the appellant, George, of all charges. The Court emphasized that the conviction was based on inconsistent witness testimony and that the High Court’s approach was flawed. The judgment underscores the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases and the need for courts to exercise caution when evaluating witness testimony.