-
by sayum
07 July 2026 3:12 PM
“Benefit of Doubt Inevitable Where Guilt Is Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt”: In a powerful reaffirmation of the principle that conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of two men, Esakkimuthu and Pitchu Mani @ Pitchai Mani, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder by the Trial Court and whose appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while delivering judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1693 and 3816 of 2025), held:
“It seems highly unlikely that a boy of 17 years of age would be able to cover such a long distance, that too with his middle-aged mother as a pillion rider… this raises huge doubts about the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the crime spot.”
Murder Allegation Based Solely on Testimony of Deceased’s Wife and Son
The case revolved around the alleged murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu on 14 April 2013, purportedly committed by A1 (Pitchu Mani) and A2 (Esakkimuthu). The prosecution case relied solely on the eyewitness accounts of the deceased’s son (PW-1) and wife (PW-2), who claimed to have witnessed the killing at a TASMAC liquor shop 16 km from their home.
According to them, they cycled the entire distance in 30 minutes to reach the scene and saw the deceased being attacked. However, the Supreme Court found their account to be “inherently improbable” and held:
“Once their presence at the scene becomes immensely doubtful, it renders the entire prosecution story highly unbelievable and lacks any substantial evidence about the appellants’ involvement.”
“Interested Witnesses Must Be Scrutinized with Greater Caution”
In its judgment, the Court reiterated the legal principle that evidence from related or interested witnesses must be treated with extreme caution. Citing Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa and Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the bench emphasized:
“Their testimonies shall have to be treated with great caution, required to be met with a stricter standard of proof and deserve to be scrutinized in order to rule out any embellishment.”
It also noted that the eyewitnesses' conduct was “unnatural”, particularly their failure to alert nearby police despite witnessing a brutal attack.
Hostile Witnesses and Medical Evidence Undermine Prosecution Case
The Court observed that all independent witnesses, including TASMAC staff and customers, had turned hostile. Moreover, medical findings showed 26 injuries on the deceased, inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim that only two accused were involved.
The Court noted:
“The post-mortem report identifies 26 injuries… unlikely to be caused by a sole assailant and more probable to be a result of an attack by a group of individuals.”
Adding further doubt, the bench remarked that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and a history-sheeter, who had been detained under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act and had multiple enmities, making it plausible that other unknown persons could have committed the crime.
“Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”
The Court ultimately concluded that the entire prosecution story was riddled with glaring omissions, improbabilities, and lack of corroboration, stating:
“There remains an impressionable question mark about the presence of the accused persons at the spot of the crime itself.”
“It cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of establishing the guilt… beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the accused persons have to be declared innocent.”
Conviction Set Aside, Appellants Acquitted
The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the judgments of both the Trial Court (dated 04.03.2020) and the Madras High Court (dated 10.09.2024), and ordered:
“The appellants are acquitted of the charges alleged against them, and are accordingly ordered to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.”
Date of decision: 22/07/2025
