Purposive Interpretation Necessary: High Court at Calcutta Clarifies Arbitration Scope “If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings Delhi High Court Stresses ‘Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice’ in Allowing New Evidence in IFFCO TOKIO Case Mere Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Allahabad High Court Acquits Rajveer Singh in Murder Case Non-Compliance with Labor Laws Cannot Deny Compensation for Informal Workers: Bombay High Court in Motor Accident Case Limitation Period Starts from Fraud Discovery, Not Sale Execution,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Testamentary Court’s Role is Limited to Verifying Testamentary Disposition: Calcutta High Court Declares Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh A humane approach is warranted in cases involving senior citizens: High Court Grants Relief in Bank Loan Recovery Case, Allows Installment Repayments Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act is Mandatory”: High Court Acquits Accused in Ganja Case Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as "Backdoor Appeal" to Introduce New Evidence in Land Acquisition Cases: Supreme Court Payment Under Minimum Wages Act Does Not Establish Employment Relationship: High Court on Res Judicata in Labour Court Proceedings Taxation Law | Reopening Assessment Beyond Four Years Requires Proof of Failure to Disclose: Delhi High Court Rigors of Section 37 Cannot Override Medical Priority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail on Medical Grounds in NDPS Case Consumer Law | Mere Deterioration of Condition Post-Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence Without Proof of Lack of Skill or Care: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Accessibility Rules for Disabled Must Be Mandatory, Strikes Down Voluntary Standards as "Ultra Vires" Court's Role Under Section 11(6A) is Limited to Verifying Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Refers Dispute to Arbitration Section 37 of the Partnership Act Entitles Outgoing Partner to Profits Derived from Firm Assets Post-Dissolution Until Final Settlement: Supreme Court Media Cannot Act as a Parallel Court: Kerala High Court Examines Media’s Right to Report Pending Criminal Cases and Court Proceedings

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

Similar News