LexESAKKIMUTHU versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1361 : 2025 INSC 880 Esakkimuthu v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 3099 of 2025) 22 July 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellants and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased relying upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, who were interested witnesses being the son and wife of the deceased respectively. Headnotes† Evidence – Related/Interested witnesses – Reliance upon – When not proper – Appellants, A1 and A2 were convicted u/s.302, IPC and u/s.302 r/w 34, IPC, respectively for the murder of the deceased relying upon the eye-witness accounts of PW-1 and PW-2 (son and wife of the deceased) – Interference with: Held: When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection – In the instant case, the two key witnesses are the son and wife of the deceased, who are very well-interested witnesses in the case therefore, their testimonies shall have to be treated with great caution and required to be met with a stricter standard of proof in order to rule out any embellishment – Though, the Courts below relied heavily on their testimonies to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, on facts, their presence at the place of crime in itself is highly contentious and was not proven definitely – No other alleged eye-witness supported the prosecution’s case, independent witnesses were declared hostile – The fact that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and a convicted criminal under the Goondas Act makes it highly probable that the deceased had enmities with multiple people who may have assaulted him and caused his death – Not proven beyond doubt that in all human probability, the * Author 1362 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports act must have been done by the accused only – Prosecution did not discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court, as well as the judgment of the Trial Court, quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w 34, 120B. [Paras 22, 23, 30-34] Evidence – Related/Interested witnesses – Appreciation – Standard of proof, discussed. [Paras 22, 23] Case Law Cited Mohamed Jabbar Ali & Ors. v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2010; Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 183 : AIR 2002 SC 3633 – relied on. Hari Obula Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982. List of Keywords Related/Interested witnesses; Eyewitnesses; Ongoing enmity; Conviction on basis of eyewitness accounts; Presence at the place of crime not proven; Presence at the crime scene doubtful; Guilt of the accused persons not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Witnesses turned hostile; Motive; Independent witnesses declared hostile; Habitual drunkard; Contradictions; Stricter standard of proof; Distance range; Distance of 16 kilometers; House of the deceased; Liquor shop; Bicycle; Tasmac shop; Charges under Section 120B, IPC unproven. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3099 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD No. 218 of 2020 With Criminal Appeal No. 3100 of 2025 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1363 Esakkimuthu v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Vairawan A.s, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, M.P. Parthiban, Ankur Prakash, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K. Advs. for the Respondent: V. krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Madras High Court in Crl. A (MD) No. 218 of 2020 wherein the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal(s) preferred by the appellants and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in a matter involving Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. 3. The brief facts forming the basis of the current appeals are as elucidate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.