When One Version is Totally Suppressed by the Prosecution, It Is Unsafe to Convict: Madras High Court Acquits All Accused

"The trial court has mechanically approved the prosecution version as if the statements of the prosecution witnesses are gospel truth" – Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed the conviction and sentence awarded to five accused in a 2008 murder case involving an alleged group assault. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted serious lapses including suppression of injuries to the accused, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in filing the FIR and forwarding witness statements, and a glaring procedural violation under Section 313 of the CrPC.

The Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman delivered a reportable common judgment allowing Criminal Appeals Nos. 641 of 2018 and 160 of 2019 filed by the accused, setting aside the 2018 conviction rendered by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai.

“Prosecution Has Not Come Out with the True Version”: Background of the Case Mired in Contradictions

The case stemmed from a prior quarrel between the deceased, Babu, and A1's family over the removal of sand adjacent to A1’s property. On August 13, 2008, the prosecution alleged that A1 to A5, all family members, unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and brutally assaulted the deceased, leading to his death the next day. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 (injured eyewitnesses), and several others.

The Trial Court convicted A1 under Section 302 IPC (murder) and A3 to A5 under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (common object), imposing life imprisonment and additional sentences under other IPC provisions. A2 was convicted under Section 323 IPC for simple hurt.

“Prosecution Witnesses Are Not Trustworthy”: Court Dissects Eyewitness Testimonies and Finds Fabrication

The High Court's re-evaluation of the evidence uncovered critical contradictions:

The injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated the assault occurred at 5:30 PM, but both medical records and their cross-examinations revealed inconsistencies. P.W.1 admitted that by the time she arrived, both the deceased and A1 were already lying injured, and a crowd had gathered. She also later admitted the incident occurred at night, not evening, contradicting the prosecution’s fixed timeline.

Similarly, P.W.2 initially stated that the occurrence happened at 7:10 PM and admitted during cross-examination that there was a clash between two groups and both A1 and A2 had sustained injuries. This was corroborated by Ex.D1, a medical certificate showing multiple injuries on A1, which the prosecution failed to acknowledge or explain.

In the Court’s words:

“P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not come up with the true version... The evidence clearly indicates that the accused side is also seriously injured... Injuries sustained by the accused group are totally suppressed by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him.”

Moreover, the remaining eyewitnesses (P.Ws.3 to 8) gave varying accounts—some admitting they arrived after the incident, others acknowledging they didn’t know who the aggressors were, and some stating that the fight was mutual. The Court held that this lack of corroboration and clarity rendered the testimony unreliable.

“Suppression of Injuries and Delay in FIR Raise Grave Doubts on the Fairness of the Investigation”

The High Court criticised the prosecution for presenting a one-sided narrative, ignoring injuries sustained by the accused and failing to record or investigate the same. The Bench noted that:

“There is no whisper, whatsoever, in the entire investigation about the nature of injuries sustained by the accused... The Investigating Officer has not even attempted to note that the other side also sustained injuries.”

Compounding the issue was the delay in registering and forwarding the FIR. Although the complaint was allegedly lodged on August 13, the FIR was filed only the next morning and despatched to the Magistrate a full day later. The statements of all key witnesses except P.W.1 were sent to the Magistrate only on January 6, 2009, nearly five months after the incident. No explanation was offered for these procedural delays.

The Court held that such delay, coupled with inconsistent witness accounts, seriously undermined the prosecution’s credibility.

"Recording Only Initials is Not Recording an Explanation": High Court Slams Trial Court for Non-Compliance Under Section 313 CrPC

The High Court found that the trial court had violated mandatory procedure under Section 313 CrPC, which requires the accused to be given an opportunity to explain the evidence appearing against them.

In a stinging rebuke, the Bench noted:

“The trial Court has just marked the initials and none of the accused's explanation has been recorded in the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which is also in violation of the very procedure contemplated under law... The trial Court has mechanically passed an order of conviction relying upon the prosecution witnesses, without appreciating whether those evidences are reliable.”

The Bench held that this procedural lapse further invalidated the conviction and showcased the mechanical manner in which the trial court had operated.

Acquittal Based on Benefit of Doubt and Failure of Prosecution to Discharge Burden of Proof

Given the multitude of issues—ranging from contradictions in the prosecution's timeline, unreliable and improving witness testimonies, suppression of injuries on the accused, unexplained procedural delays, and non-compliance with CrPC requirements—the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court decisively stated:

“We are of the clear view that it is unsafe to convict the accused for such a huge crime, particularly when one version is totally suppressed... and the prosecution witnesses have not come out with the true version.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted all the accused, and directed that any fine paid be refunded. It also discharged the bail bonds of the appellants.

Date of Decision: 23 October 2025