Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: 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