Supreme Court acquits accused in 14-year-old murder case whose acquittal was reversed by HC relying on testimony of the Investigating Officers

Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal challenging reversal of acquittal in a murder case, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ., noted that the Karnataka High Court in the instant matter, had reversed the accused’s acquittal on mere surmises and conjectures relying wholly on the testimony of the Investigating Officers, who merely repeated the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and the voluntary statements of the accused.

The Court said that it understood the consternation of the High Court Judges examining a cold-blooded murder where the elaborate investigation collapsed during the trial and majority of the witnesses turned hostile. However, that was no reason to rely on Section 161 statements, or the story scripted by the investigating agency based on the so-called voluntary statements and the recoveries made, which the prosecution failed to prove to have a nexus with the crime.

The Court emphatically observed that, “We can only accede to and share the consternation of the Division Bench of the High Court, which borders on desperation, due to the futility of the entire exercise. That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence”.

“Prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery. Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eyewitnesses turn blind”.

Background:

In the instant case a brutal murder took place in 2011 whereby the deceased was hacked to death in front of his own son. The prosecution alleged that the reason behind the deceased’s murder differences arising from sharing of assets between the parties involved.

As the case reached the Trial Court, 87 witnesses were led in trial to speak about the homicide, the motive, the meeting of minds leading to the conspiracy, the preparation, what transpired after the incident and the arrest, recovery, chemical analysis and so on and so forth; however, it was all in vain as 71 out of 87 witnesses, including the relevant witnesses and the deceased’s son, turned hostile. The prosecution was thus left to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses. Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons finding no support for the prosecution case.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted accused persons A1 to A6 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860; and affirmed the acquittal of A7 by the Trial Court.

Court’s Assessment:

Perusing the appeal, the Court had to examine whether the High Court followed scrupulously the principles laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, in setting aside the order of acquittal. Whether, while exercising the full power conferred in an appeal to review, the High Court was able to reappreciate and consider the evidence led in the case; and whether, the Trial Court had been absolutely unreasonable in taking a view that there was insufficient evidence to bring home a conviction in the case.

Examining the statements made by the witnesses presented by the prosecution to prove the motive, conspiracy and incidental circumstances, leading eventually to the murder of the deceased, the Court pointed out that most of the witnesses had turned hostile. The Court further noted that even though, Appellate Court had accepted that all these witnesses turned hostile, it looked at the story projected by the prosecution as spoken of in the Section 161 statements of the witnesses.

The Court further noted that the motive, conspiracy, preparation made before, and what transpired after the crime, as projected by the prosecution remained a mere scripted story as discernible from the Section 161 statements; and was not established in the trial.

It was pointed out that the High Court having found that all the witnesses except the official witnesses turned hostile looked at the evidence of the official witnesses especially the Investigating Officers and the recoveries made in the course of investigation.

The Court found that the High Court seriously erred in relying on the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161, as affirmed by the Investigating Officer, clearly in violation of Section 162. The High Court had placed heavy reliance on the testimonies of PW’s 83, 84 and 87, the IOs, with the assertion that they were unshaken in cross-examination and reliance was placed on the affirmation of the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161, which the witnesses did not speak themselves in the box, at the trial. The Court observed that, even though reliance was said to be placed on the testimony of the IOs’ this would in fact be a reliance placed on Section 161 statements as spoken of by the IOs, which was egregiously wrong.

Examining the statements of the witnesses as analysed by the High Court, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish motive behind the deceased’s murder. The statements made by the IOs regarding the motive, conspiracy and preparation, comes out as the prosecution story, as discernible from the Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of the CrPC. Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission or instances from which conspiracy could be inferred as the preparation, established beyond reasonable doubt. “The witnesses had turned hostile, for reasons best known to themselves. The only inference possible, on the witnesses turning hostile is that either they have been persuaded for reasons unknown or coerced into resiling from the statements made under Section 161 or that they had not made such statements before police officers”. Merely because the story came out of the mouth of the IO, it cannot be believed and a legal sanctity given to it, higher than that provided to Section 161 statements under Section 162 of the CrPC.

Furthermore, there was no clear connection established of the recovered items with the accused and the crime; especially in this case, where the clothes were not recovered on the confession statement of A5 & A6, who are alleged to have committed the crime. The identification said to have been made by A5 & A6 at the time of recovery, to the police officers, again is not a confession made under Section 27 and would be hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Perusing the recoveries made in the case, the Court pointed out that they were akin to a seizure, not one made on the information supplied or confession recorded.

The High Court had laboured on Section 30 of the Evidence Act to hold that the confession of a co-accused can be used against the other accused. It was held, Section 30 would bring within its ambit even a Section 27 confession in addition to an extra-judicial confession or one made under Section 164 of the CrPC; the last two of which was totally absent in the present case.

The Court hence observed that the High Court in reversing the order of acquittal of the Trial Court proceeded on mere surmises and conjectures relying wholly on the testimony of the Investigating Officers, who merely regurgitated the statements recorded under Section 161 and the voluntary statements of the accused.

The Supreme Court however stated that it understood the consternation of the High Court Judges, in the cold-blooded murder of a person, carried out in front of his own son where the investigation though elaborate, it collapsed miserably at the trial, where the prosecution witnesses; all of them, turned hostile.

The Court pointed out that consternation of the Judges was no reason to rely on Section 161 statements of the IOs. The Supreme Court thus found that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for reasons unknown. Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officers which was founded only on Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former being violative of Section 162 of the CrPC and the latter in breach of Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. The High Court had egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available.

The Court thus decided to acquit the accused and set aside the reversal of acquittal, with a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed.

[Renuka Prasad v. State, Criminal Appeal Nos.3189-3190 of 2023, decided on 9-5-2025]

*Judgment by Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Appellant(s) Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. P.V. Harikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shrey Kuldeep Brahmbhatt, Adv.

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE