Unsafe to Base Conviction on Sole Testimony of Eyewitness: Madras High Court in Murder Conspiracy Case; Accused Acquitted
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has underlined the importance of credible and corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly when a conviction hinges on the testimony of a single eyewitness. The Court’s decision in the appeal of K. Shanmugam and Others vs. State by The Inspector of Police highlighted the risks of relying solely on the testimony of one witness without substantial corroboration.
The appellants were convicted for the murder of an individual, allegedly due to personal grudges and illicit relationships. The primary evidence against them was the testimony of PW1, the brother of the deceased. The case raised crucial questions about the credibility of sole eyewitness testimony, the investigation procedures, and the evidence of weapons.
The Court thoroughly scrutinized the evidence and the procedures followed in the investigation. The reliability of PW1, the sole eyewitness, was seriously doubted due to discrepancies in his testimony and improbabilities in his conduct. The Court observed, “it would be highly unsafe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of PW1 alone.”
The investigation procedure was questioned, especially regarding the delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate and the possible manipulation indicated by the presence of police before the FIR registration. Moreover, the knives allegedly recovered from the accused were not bloodstained, weakening the prosecution’s claim that these were the murder weapons.
Given these findings, the Court acquitted accused A2, A4 to A9, setting aside their convictions and sentences in S.C. No.5 of 2011 dated 25.07.2019. The Court ordered their immediate release unless required in other cases, emphasizing the need for reliable and corroborative evidence in criminal convictions.
Date of Decision: 16th February 2024
Shanmugam and Others vs. State
