Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to unreliable witness testimony: Nagaraj Reddy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (21 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 235

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder based solely on the testimony of a witness who is related to the victim and has a history of animosity with the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. This judgment underscores the importance of corroborating the testimony of interested witnesses in criminal cases to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice. The bench comprised of Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of one Rajappa in Oozhiyalam village, Krishnagiri district. The deceased and the accused belonged to different communities, and tensions were high due to a land dispute involving a Self Help Group where Rajappa’s wife was the president. A contract to build a compound wall around the disputed land was given to people from Rajappa’s community, which further escalated the conflict. This led to several quarrels and criminal cases being filed against both parties at the Bagalur Police Station.

On September 14, 2004, Rajappa, along with his brother Narayanappa (PW-1), was on his way to court for a hearing related to the prior disputes. They were ambushed near a check post by accused individuals, including the appellant Nagaraj Reddy. The prosecution alleged that Nagaraj Reddy threw chili powder in Rajappa’s face and then attacked him with a sickle, leading to his death. Following the incident, the accused allegedly went to Rajappa’s house, proclaiming his murder and threatening his family. Narayanappa escaped and informed Rajappa’s wife, Radha (PW-3), about the attack.

A complaint was lodged, and a case was registered against five accused persons, including Nagaraj Reddy. During the investigation, more individuals were implicated for conspiring to murder Rajappa.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Nagaraj Reddy (accused No. 1) and another accused (accused No. 3) under Sections 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The trial court relied heavily on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-3, and PW-4. However, it acquitted accused Nos. 4 to 13.

Aggrieved by the conviction, Nagaraj Reddy and accused No. 3 appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court upheld the conviction of Nagaraj Reddy but acquitted accused No. 3, citing discrepancies in the arrest records. The State did not appeal the acquittal of accused Nos. 4 to 13.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for wrongful restraint. It states, “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in convicting him under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC.
• It was contended that the High Court acquitted accused No. 3 based on the evidence of Narayanappa (PW-1), and therefore, the conviction of the appellant based on the same evidence is not legally sound.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that both the trial court and the High Court had concurrently found the appellant guilty based on the appreciation of evidence.
• It was submitted that there was no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact.

The primary witness, Narayanappa (PW-1), was the brother of the deceased. His testimony was crucial for the prosecution’s case. However, the defense argued that since PW-1 was an interested witness (being related to the victim) and had a history of enmity with the accused, his testimony should not be relied upon without corroboration. The prosecution contended that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court should be upheld.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant based solely on the testimony of Narayanappa (PW-1), an interested witness, is sustainable in law, especially when the same testimony was disbelieved in the case of another accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Unreliable Witness Testimony: The Court found that Narayanappa (PW-1), the key witness, was an interested party due to his relationship with the deceased and the existing enmity between the parties. His testimony was considered unreliable, especially since the lower courts had disbelieved the same testimony concerning other accused individuals.
• Lack of Corroboration: The Court emphasized that the testimony of an interested witness requires corroboration, which was absent in this case. The conviction could not be solely based on PW-1’s testimony without additional supporting evidence.
• Inconsistent Application of Evidence: The High Court’s decision to acquit one accused (accused No. 3) based on PW-1’s testimony while convicting the appellant on the same testimony was seen as inconsistent and flawed.

The Court’s reasoning was that the High Court had not properly applied the principles of evidence law. The Court emphasized that the testimony of an interested witness, especially one with a history of enmity, cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of an interested witness, particularly one with prior enmity, must be corroborated by other reliable evidence to form the basis of a conviction.
• Courts must be consistent in their application of evidence and not accept or reject the same evidence for different accused without a valid reason.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity, and that a conviction cannot be based on unreliable testimony.
• The ruling highlights the importance of a fair trial and the need to protect the rights of the accused by ensuring that convictions are based on solid and reliable evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Nagaraj Reddy, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of an interested witness, especially one with a history of enmity, cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity, and that a conviction cannot be based on unreliable testimony. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the Court has reiterated the importance of corroboration of an interested witness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of Nagaraj Reddy. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence and that the rights of the accused are protected.