Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Tutored Witnesses: Manikandan vs. State (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 5, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 272
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a conviction for murder stand when the key witnesses have been tutored by the police? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the prosecution’s witnesses were found to have been coached by the police before giving their testimonies. This judgment highlights the importance of fair trial procedures and the severe consequences of tampering with the judicial process. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of one Balamurugan, who was allegedly assaulted by the appellants, Manikandan (accused no. 2) and another individual (accused no. 1). The prosecution’s case is that on October 4, 2007, at around 9 pm, Balamurugan went to the house of accused no. 1 to inquire about the non-delivery of idlis. An altercation ensued, and accused no. 1 allegedly attacked Balamurugan with a billhook. Accused no. 2 was also present at the scene. Balamurugan sustained injuries and died as a result of the assault.

The prosecution relied on the testimonies of several eyewitnesses, including Balamurugan’s mother (PW-2), brother-in-law (PW-3), sister of PW-1 (PW-4), and son of PW-4 (PW-5). The Trial Court convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The High Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging their conviction, primarily arguing that the eyewitnesses were not reliable because they were tutored by the police before giving their testimonies.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This exception states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the First Information Report (FIR) stated the incident occurred at 10:30 pm, while the post-mortem notes suggested the incident happened before 7 pm, creating a discrepancy in the timing of the incident.
• The prosecution only examined witnesses closely related to the deceased, who were interested and tutored, and therefore their testimonies should be discarded.
• The deceased initiated the fight by going to the house of accused no. 1 to inquire about the idlis.
• The injuries sustained by the deceased were minor, suggesting a sudden fight without premeditation.
• The case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, reducing the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC.

The appellants relied on several cases to support their arguments, including:

• No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [2023 INSC 648]
• Ram Manohar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1084]
• Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. v. the State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 528]
• Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 327]
• Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 4 SCC 653]
• Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 381]
• Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. [(2006) 11 SCC 444]

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The respondent argued that the testimonies of PW-2 to PW-5 were consistent and reliable.
• Accused no. 1’s act of entering his house, bringing a billhook, and then assaulting the deceased demonstrated a clear intention to cause harm.
• The accused chased the deceased after the first blow, with accused no. 2 holding the deceased while accused no. 1 delivered the fatal blow, indicating premeditation and negating the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered several authorities while arriving at its decision:

Cases:

• No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [2023 INSC 648] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.
• Ram Manohar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1084] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.
• Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. v. the State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 528] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.
• Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 327] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.
• Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 4 SCC 653] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.
• Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 381] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.
• Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. [(2006) 11 SCC 444] – The Court did not specify the exact point for which this case was relied upon.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Exception to murder in cases of sudden fight.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court did not specify the exact point for which the cases No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [2023 INSC 648]*, Ram Manohar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1084]*, Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. v. the State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 528]*, Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 327]*, Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 4 SCC 653]*, Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 381]* and Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. [(2006) 11 SCC 444]* were relied upon by the appellants.
• The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for defining the punishment for murder.
• The Court considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the concept of common intention.
• The Court considered Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as a possible exception to murder in cases of sudden fight, but did not apply it due to the unreliability of the witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the finding that the key prosecution witnesses were tutored by the police. This act of police interference severely undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the police cannot be allowed to tutor witnesses and that such actions amount to a gross misuse of power. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, further weakening their case. The benefit of doubt was given to the accused due to the serious questions raised about the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The Court found that the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to the fact that they were tutored by the police. As stated by the Court, “it is apparent that on 19th November 2008, the first five interested witnesses, PW -1 to PW -5, who were closely related to the deceased, were called to the Police Station and were taught by the police how to depose against the accused.”
• The Court observed that the police tutoring of witnesses was a blatant act of interference with the judicial process and a gross misuse of power. The Court stated, “This kind of interference by the Police with the judicial process, to say the least, is shocking. This amounts to gross misuse of power by the Police machinery. The Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness.”
• The Court also noted that the prosecution had withheld independent witnesses, which further weakened their case. As stated by the Court, “Although available, independent witnesses were not examined by the Prosecution. Therefore, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution.”
• The Court concluded that there was a serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case and that the benefit of this doubt must be given to the appellants. The Court stated, “Hence, there is a serious doubt created about the genuineness of the prosecution case. The benefit of this substantial doubt must be given to the appellants.”

The Supreme Court did not delve into the arguments regarding the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, as it found the prosecution’s case to be unreliable due to the tutored witnesses.

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Police interference in the judicial process, such as tutoring witnesses, is a serious violation of the principles of fair trial.
• The testimonies of tutored witnesses are unreliable and cannot form the basis of a conviction.
• The prosecution has a duty to present all available evidence, including independent witnesses, to ensure a fair trial.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when there are serious questions about the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police of the State of Tamil Nadu to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the police officials who tutored the witnesses. The Court also directed that appropriate action be initiated against the erring officials.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimonies of tutored witnesses are unreliable and cannot form the basis of a conviction. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must ensure a fair trial and not resort to tampering with the judicial process. This case highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that witnesses are not influenced by external factors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, Manikandan and another, in a murder case, citing the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses who were found to have been tutored by the police. This judgment underscores the critical importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that witnesses are not influenced by external factors. The Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder that convictions must be based on credible evidence and fair trial procedures.