Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case

Lack of Conclusive Evidence and Unreliable Witness Testimonies Lead to Overturned Conviction in Landmark Judgment
In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has overturned the conviction of Siva @ Sivakumar in a high-profile double murder case, citing a lack of conclusive proof and unreliable witness testimonies. The judgment, delivered by Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan on June 20, 2024, emphasized the importance of reliable evidence in criminal convictions and underscored the principle that suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof.

The appellant, Siva @ Sivakumar, was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, for the murder of his father, Selvaraj, and his nephew, Bharath Kumar. The prosecution alleged that Siva, in conspiracy with his mother (co-accused and later acquitted), committed the murders on April 15, 2017, due to property disputes. The bodies were allegedly dismembered and disposed of in gunny bags at a dump yard. Siva was sentenced to life imprisonment for two counts of murder and seven years for destruction of evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence: The Court noted that the case was heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence, which failed to conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt. The prosecution’s inability to establish a clear motive and the inconsistencies in witness testimonies significantly weakened the case.
Hostile Witness: The key witness, PW1, who was the daughter of one deceased and mother of another, turned hostile, denying any property dispute and failing to support the prosecution’s case.
Unreliable Witnesses: The testimonies of PW2 (neighbor) and PW8 (another neighbor) were found insufficient and inconsistent. PW8’s statement about seeing the appellant with gunny bags was vague and delayed, raising doubts about its credibility.
Construction Workers’ Accounts: PW9 and PW10, who claimed to have seen the appellant cleaning the crime scene, provided contradictory statements and failed to specify dates, further undermining their reliability.
Motive: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a convincing motive. The alleged property dispute was not substantiated by credible evidence. The settlement deed (Ex.P15) did not conclusively indicate any motive for murder.
Discovery of Evidence: The prosecution’s claim that the bodies were discovered based on the appellant’s confession was disputed. There were inconsistencies regarding the timing and involvement of police and witnesses in the discovery of the bodies, casting doubt on the authenticity of the appellant’s confession.
Defense of Alibi: The appellant and the acquitted co-accused claimed to be in Thiruvannamalai at the time of the incident, which was not disproved by the prosecution. The testimony of A2 (co-accused) as DW1 supported the appellant’s alibi, creating reasonable doubt about his presence at the crime scene.
Justice Sunder Mohan remarked, “The circumstances must form a complete chain and they must point out only to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution, therefore, in our view, failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

The High Court’s decision to acquit Siva @ Sivakumar underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal cases. By setting aside the trial court’s judgment due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, the ruling reinforces the importance of conclusive proof in securing convictions. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on future criminal cases, emphasizing the necessity for robust and reliable evidence.

Date of Decision: June 20, 2024