Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High 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