District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Police Cannot be Allowed to Tutor Prosecution Witnesses – Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Manikandan v. State By the Inspector of Police delved into the misconduct of police in tutoring witnesses, resulting in the overturning of the murder conviction against the appellants. The judgment is significant for its scrutiny of the police’s role in influencing eyewitness testimony and safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes.

The crux of the case involved the conviction of Manikandan (Accused No.2) in a murder case based on the testimony of witnesses related to the deceased, Balamurugan. The defense highlighted discrepancies in the witnesses’ accounts and accused the police of tutoring them, while also questioning the non-examination of independent witnesses.

Tutoring of Witnesses: The Court observed egregious misconduct by the police, who had “taught” the prosecution witnesses how to give evidence. This act was labeled as a severe misuse of authority and interference with the judicial process.

Integrity of Eyewitness Accounts: Due to police intervention, the Court dismissed the testimonies of the tutored witnesses, citing doubts about their reliability.

Exclusion of Independent Testimonies: The failure of the prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses led the Court to infer negatively against the case presented.

Allocation of Doubt: Given the substantial uncertainty cast on the prosecution’s narrative, the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt.

Consideration of Time Served: The Court noted the appellants had already served more than ten years in incarceration before being released on bail.

Decision: The Supreme Court’s decision acquitted the appellants of all charges, emphasizing the significant role of law enforcement in upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system. The judgment also mandated an inquiry into the conduct of the police officers involved and called for appropriate action against those found guilty of misconduct.

Date of Decision: April 5, 2024

Manikandan v. State By the Inspector of Police

Latest Legal News