Prosecution’s Story Fraught with Contradictions—Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned Based on Unreliable Evidence: Madras High Court

Eyewitnesses Turn Hostile, Key Testimonies Contradictory—Chain of Circumstances Broken, Benefit Must Go to Accused - Madras High Court, in a detailed and fact-intensive ruling in Kalarani v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others [Crl.A(MD) No.225 of 2020], dismissed the appeal filed by the sister-in-law of deceased Mahadevan, who sought conviction of eleven accused for murder, criminal conspiracy, and house trespass. The Court affirmed the acquittal recorded by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima emphasized: “When the view taken by the trial Court is plausible, even if a different view is possible, the appellate Court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless it suffers from perversity.”

“Three Separate Incidents Alleged, But No Consistent Evidence on Any—Prosecution’s Story Is Unreliable”

The prosecution had structured its case around three incidents on 18 February 2014—(i) a land boundary dispute at 10:00 AM, (ii) house trespass and property damage at 11:00 AM, and (iii) murder of Mahadevan at 1:00 PM.

The First Incident allegedly occurred near a cashew grove on Vilar Bypass Road, where a dispute over property boundaries escalated. However, the Court noted that none of the key witnesses including PW1 (Kalarani), PW5 (Mahalingam), PW20 (Ganesan), and PW23 (Iyyappan) gave corroborative evidence. In fact, the Court observed:

“Each of the prosecution witnesses has given contradictory versions. The scene of crime was not photographed, observation mahazar not drawn, and no injuries of Iyyappan and Ganesan were documented.”

PW23 even turned hostile, admitting that Mahadevan and others were in an inebriated state and quarrelling among themselves, thereby weakening the theory of external aggression.

“Damage to Property Is Established—But Not the Identity of the Offenders”

In the Second Incident, two wives of the deceased—PW2 (Kavitha) and PW3 (Lalitha)—testified that accused persons trespassed into their house and damaged windowpanes, fish tanks, and utensils. However, despite some recovery of broken glass, the Court held: “While damage is proven, the contradiction in the identity of persons who caused it and the embellishment in testimonies of PW2 and PW3 are sufficient to cast doubt.”

The trial Court had noted that PW2’s earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC named only six persons, while at trial, she included five more—a clear case of post-facto inclusion. Additionally, injuries allegedly suffered by PW3 had no medical corroboration.

“The Murder Itself Is Unsupported by Eyewitnesses—Hostile Testimony, No Chain of Circumstances”

The Third Incident, namely the murder of Mahadevan, allegedly occurred at 1:00 PM near Sindu Nagar Junction. However, both named eyewitnesses—PW6 (Kalidas) and PW9 (Arumugam)—turned hostile.

The Court observed: “The prosecution’s case of conspiracy and murder rests entirely on hearsay and speculative connections drawn through unrelated testimony.”

Even though the post-mortem confirmed multiple injuries, the weapon recovery (MO1 and MO2) was undermined by contradictory evidence from the VAO (PW8), who admitted that recovery was not made in his presence and dates in confession statements were altered.

Further weakening the prosecution’s case, PW23 (Iyyappan) testified that Mahadevan was drunk and quarrelling with others, and when he last saw him, there was no sign of external threat.

“Principle of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus Cannot Be Applied—Court Must Sift Grain from Chaff”

The appellant argued that the trial Court erred in disbelieving direct witnesses due to minor contradictions, and applied the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus principle improperly.

However, the High Court found that contradictions were not minor but went to the root of the prosecution case. The Bench emphasized: “The contradictions are not trivial discrepancies of memory but material contradictions destructive of the prosecution theory itself.”

“Benefit of Doubt Must Go to Accused—Acquittal Based on Reasonable Doubt Cannot Be Reversed Lightly”

In a reasoned conclusion, the High Court affirmed the trial Court’s acquittal and held that there was no compelling ground to reverse the verdict:

“The presence of the accused and the manner of Mahadevan’s death are both shrouded in uncertainty. When even the identity of eyewitnesses is in question, the accused must be granted benefit of doubt.”

This decision stands as a reiteration of the golden thread of criminal jurisprudence—that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and an acquittal cannot be overturned merely on suspicion or inconsistencies in the narrative.

The Bench closed by reaffirming: “In the absence of a clear, unbroken chain of evidence, conviction would be a grave miscarriage of justice.”

Date of Decision: 18 March 2025