AGNIRAJ & ORS. ETC. versus STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB-CID

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 23-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 856 : 2025 INSC 774
Agniraj & Ors. etc. 
v. 
State through Deputy Superintendent of Police CB-CID
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1686-1688 of 2023)
23 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction 
of the appellants/accused no. 1 to 11 for offences punishable  
u/ss.302 and 307 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the other 
offences; whether, in the instant case, the trial Court followed the 
condition precedent before examining a minor witness; whether 
the trial Court satisfied itself that minor witness understood the 
importance of the oath.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307 r/w.149 – Tamil Nadu Prevention 
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1992 – s.3 – FIR lodged 
against thirty accused persons on a complaint made by 
PW-1 – There was political rivalry between the parties – On 
the night of 14.11.2012, PW-1, deceased no. 1 (brother of  
PW-1) along with his son (deceased no. 2) and daughter  
PW-9, were travelling in a car driven by his driver (deceased 
no. 3) – At around 9:30 p.m., a truck came towards them from 
the opposite side – To avoid a collision, deceased no. 3 swerved 
the car, and the truck grazed the car – A group including 
accused no. 1, armed with weapons attacked the car and its 
inmates – PW-1 escaped and hid in a nearby bush – The group 
attacked the three other occupants to death – When the group 
tried setting the car on fire, they spotted some men in police 
uniforms and fled – PW-2 witnessed this incident with one 
AR – Written complaint filed by PW-1 led to the registration 
of the FIR – Prosecution also relied upon fingerprints lifted 
from the car and recovery of weapons – Out of the twenty-
one accused who were charged, accused nos. 1 to 11 were 
convicted and others were acquitted – High Court confirmed 
the findings of the Trial Court – Correctness:
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
857
Agniraj & Ors. etc. v. 
State through Deputy Superintendent of Police CB-CID
Held: The material prosecution witnesses are PW-1 who is the 
first informant and alleged eye-witness, PW-2 and PW-9, a minor 
witness – Firstly, the evidence of PW-1 is dealt with – It is brought 
on record that though the DSP and other police officers met PW-1 at 
the scene of the offence, they did not record his statement – It has 
come on record that PW-1 did not directly go to the police station to 
record his complaint – Instead, PW-1 along with an advocate, PW-
14 and PW15 went to the police station and handed over a written 
complaint to PW-52 – There was a political rivalry between him and 
accused No. 1 – The possibility of filing complaint after deliberation 
with the supporters of political party cannot be ruled out – In the 
written complaint, PW-1 named 22 persons as accused – During 
investigation, 36 persons were treated as accused, out of which, 
only 21 persons were charged – 15 accused persons were dropped 
with the consent of PW-1 – The reason given is that PW-1 was 
nervous and hence, he exaggerated the incident by naming the said 
15 accused – He gave no objection for deletion of 15 accused – 
PW-1 admitted that, in his report, he stated that 36 persons stood 
around the car – Then he came out with the theory that there were 
20 persons – PW-1 has exaggerated the incident due to their political 
rivalry – He was unsure about the number of accused who were 
present at the time of the incident – The incident happened after 
09:30 pm – PW-1 has not stated the distance between the bush in 
which he was hiding and the spot of the incident – There is a serious 
doubt whether he could have seen the incident in the light of the 
car – Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence 
– Now, dealing with evidence of PW-2 – For more than one and 
a half months, he did not approach the police or filed a complaint 
in any form – Considering the conduct of the witness of remaining 
silent for a long period of one and a half months, the testimony of 
this witness cannot be believed – Moreover, during this period, he 
moved from place to place – It is not his case that anyone threatened 
him during the said period – Moreover, he stated that one AR was 
an eye-witness – However, the prosecution failed to examine him 
– Therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn against the 
prosecution – Now coming to PW-9, who was 10 years old on the 
date of recording of evidence – The Trial Court has not followed 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.