LexMANIKANDAN versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 234 : 2024 INSC 272 Manikandan v. State by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2011) 05 April 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the police and its effect on the prosecution case. Headnotes Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses by the police – Effect: Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses-interested witnesses – It amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded before the trial court, witnesses were called to the Police Station and were taught to depose in a particular manner – Their evidence will have to be discarded as there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the police on the earlier day – This conduct becomes more serious as other independent eyewitnesses, though available, were withheld – Furthermore, defence of the accused was that they were not present at the place of the incident at the time of the incident – One of the prosecution witness admitted that accused was working in another village – Thus, serious doubt created about the genuineness of the prosecution case – Benefit of substantial doubt to be given to the appellants – Before the appellants were enlarged on bail, they had undergone incarceration for more than 10 years – Thus, the courts below erred in convicting the appellants – Impugned judgments and orders set aside, and the appellants acquitted of the offences alleged against them. [Paras 8, 9] Judicial deprecation – Blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses at the police station: Held: This amounts to gross misuse of power by the Police machinery – This kind of interference by the Police with the [2024] 4 S.C.R. 235 Manikandan v. State by the Inspector of Police judicial process is shocking – Director General of Police of the State to cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officials of tutoring the witnesses at the concerned Police Station – Appropriate action to be initiated against the erring officials in accordance with the law. [Paras 8, 10] Case Law Cited No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India & Anr. [2023] 10 SCR 1139 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 882 : [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] 2 SCR 69 : (2003) 3 SCC 528; Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana [2002] 1 SCR 1152 : (2002) 3 SCC 327; Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [2006] 3 SCR 632 : (2006) 4 SCC 653; Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 389 : (2004) 11 SCC 381; Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. [2006] Supp. 4 SCR 633 : (2006) 11 SCC 444 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Evidence; Witnesses; Tutoring of witnesses by police; Interested witnesses; Misuse of power by the police machinery; Eye witnesses; Incarceration; Judicial process. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2009 of the High Court of Madras in CRLA No. 250 of 2009 With Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019 Appearances for Parties G. Sivabala Murugan, Mailysamy, Selvaraj Mahendran, C.Adhikesavan, P.V. Hari Krishnan, P. Soma Sundaram, R Nedumaran, B Ragunath, Mrs. N.C Kavitha, Vijay Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. 236 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019 is the accused no.1, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2011 is the accused no.2. The Trial Court convicted both the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and life sentence of the appellants. 2. We are referring to the prosecution case in brief. The name of the deceased is Balamurugan. He was staying with his parents – PW-l Mahalingam and PW-2 Veerammal.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.