Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies and Faulty Police Investigation: Supreme Court Acquits  in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has acquitted Periyasamy (A1) and R. Manoharan (A2) in the sensational murder case stemming from a quarrel at a wine shop. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol presided over the appeal against the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court’s judgment, which had upheld the Session Court’s verdict convicting the duo.

The judgment turned on the admissibility and reliability of witness testimonies, the validity of the police investigation, and the prosecution’s failure to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.

The case involved the murder of two individuals during a quarrel at Saravana Wine Shop in Neithalur Colony on March 3, 2002. Periyasamy and Manoharan were accused of the murder and convicted by the lower courts. However, the appellants challenged the veracity of witness testimonies and pointed out lapses in the police investigation.

The Supreme Court found several inconsistencies in the testimonies of injured witnesses and noted the absence of independent witnesses, despite the incident occurring in a crowded area. The Court also criticized the police investigation for its “casual and callous approach”, highlighting the absence of scientific investigation at the crime scene, non-examination of critical medical personnel, and failure to provide a clear sequence of events.

The Court emphasized, “In our estimation, the prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no conviction resting thereupon can be said to be just in the eyes of law.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted A1 and A2, setting aside their convictions. The judgment underlined the principle of criminal convictions being based on evidence that meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which, in this case, was not satisfied.

 Date of Decision: March 18, 2024

“Periyasamy vs. The State Rep. By the Inspector of

Latest Legal News