Supreme Court of India
GEORGEversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
- Citation
- [2024] 12 S.C.R. 769
- Decided
- 13 December 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of an interested witness if the same testimony is deemed unreliable for co‑accused, as such reliance amounts to conjecture and surmise.
Summary
The appellant, George, was convicted under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 IPC for the murder of the informant's son, based solely on the testimony of the father (PW‑1), an interested witness. The High Court, however, acquitted two co‑accused on the same testimony, finding it unreliable for them, yet upheld the appellant's conviction. The Supreme Court held that it was impermissible to accept the same witness's evidence for the appellant while discarding it for the others, as the conviction rested on conjecture and surmise. The Court emphasized that an interested witness's testimony must be scrutinized with greater caution and cannot be used inconsistently. It also noted that the recovery of the knife from a public place did not substantiate the conviction. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court's order, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction of the appellant based solely on the testimony of an interested witness, while the same testimony was disbelieved for co‑accused, is permissible.
- Whether the evidence of the recovery of the knife from an open place suffices to sustain a conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294(b), s. 302, s. 341, s. 506(ii)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1
Subjects
MurderAcquittal of accused and conviction of other accused on basis of same witnessBenefit of doubtInterested witnessConjectures and surmisesFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibusSole testimony
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 769 : 2024 INSC 974
George
v.
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
(Criminal Appeal No. 5279 of 2024)
13 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting
the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the
very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to
accused Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, 506(ii) and 302 – Prosecution
case that the informant’s son was caught by the two accused
persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the
appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his
neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he
was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1 – The trial court
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the
case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict and
sentence the accused persons – The High Court acquitted the
two other accused persons, however, appellant was acquitted
u/s.506(ii) IPC and his conviction u/ss.294(b), 341, and 302 IPC
was sustained – Correctness:
Held: While disbelieving the testimony of PW-1 qua accused Nos. 2
and 3, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the incident
occurred 300 metres away from the Church and that could not
have enabled PW-1 to have actually witnessed the overt act that is
attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3 – However, the appellant herein
involved in the same overt act has been convicted on the basis
of the same testimony of PW-1 – In the instant case, PW-1 is the
father of the deceased and is an interested witness – No doubt
that merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot
* Author
770 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness – However,
the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater
caution and circumspection – When the High Court comes to
a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that PW-1 could have
witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted
benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the conviction of accused
No.1 on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only
on the basis of conjectures and surmises, is not permissible – As
far as seizure of knife is concerned, the testimony of PW-18 would
show that the recovery was made from an open place accessible
to one and all – In the considered opinion of this Court, only on the
basis of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could
not have been based – Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of all
the charges levelled against him and is directed to be released
forthwith. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 17(iii)]
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Murder; Acquital of accused and conviction of other accused on
basis of same witness; Benefit of doubt; Interested witness; Basis
of conjectures and surmises; Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus;
Sole testimony.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5279 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2019 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD No. 479
of 2017
Appearances for Parties
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Ms. D Durga Devi, Pranab Prakash,
Advs. for the Appellant.
N.R.Elango, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan,
C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, V.M. Eshwar, Ms. Aswani Satheesh,
Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 771
George v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 1st
November 2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
in Crl. A. (MD) No. 479 of 2017, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by
the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17th November
2017 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi (hereinafter, “trial court”)
was partly allowed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld
the conviction and sentence qua the appellant insofar as the offence
punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) but he was acquitted of the charge
under Section 506(ii) IPC.
3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are
as given below:
3.1 The genesis of the present case is the registration of FIR No.
224 of 2015 on 16th May 2015 at Police Station Sathankulam,
District Thoothukudi by one Mr. Kovilraj (PW-1). Written
information was received at the said Police Station at 02:30
hours alleging commission of offence punishable under
Sections 294(b), 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC by the appellant,
Rajarathinam and Albert. It is stated by PW-1 that he is a Church
Member and Choir Master in Immanuel Church at Ananthapuram.
He stated that he was in favour of Arputharaj in the Diocese
Election, due to which the appellant, who supported the rival
faction of Pushparaj entered into a wordy quarrel with his son
(Praveen Kumar) about a year prior to the day of the incident.
It is stated that the informant (PW-1), his wife Chandra and his
son had gone to Ananthapuram for a Consecration Festival on
15th May 2015. In the intervening night of 15-16th May 2015, at
around 00:30 hours, when the informant’s son was standing
in front of the Church and chatting with his friends Praveen
Immanuel (PW-2), Melvin Abraham (not examined) and Gerome
772 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(not examined), the three accused persons came and abused
the informant’s son in a filthy language and questioned him as
to how after working against them in the election, he could come
and participate in the festival. It is stated that informant’s son
had replied that they had no right to question him. Immediately
thereafter, the appellant took out a knife, which he had hid in
his hip (pocket), upon which, the informant’s son ran owing to
escape. The informant’s son was chased by the three of them,
however, he was caught by the accused persons. It is alleged
that while the other two accused persons held the informant’s
son, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of
his neck. The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where
he was declared dead. Hence, the FIR by PW-1.
3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was taken over by
Vijaya Kumar (Inspector of Police) (PW-19). PW-19 went to the
scene of crime, he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P-18)
and a rough sketch (Ex. P-19) and also recovered the material
objects (M.O.-12 and M.O.-13) in the presence of witnesses. He,
thereafter, proceeded to the hospital and prepared the inquest
report (Ex. P-21). Based on the confession of the appellant,
the knife (M.O.-1) was recovered by Nagarajan, Inspector of
Police (PW-18), who had taken over part of the investigation in
the absence of PW-19 for a short period. The statements of all
the witnesses were recorded by PW-19 and after completion
of investigation, on 17th August 2015, the final report was filed
before Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.
3.3 Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court,
it was committed to the trial court. The trial court framed
charges against the accused persons. To bring home the guilt
of accused persons, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses,
marked 23 documents and 13 material objects. No witness
was examined and no document was marked on the side of
the defence. The trial court, upon consideration of the facts
and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the oral
and documentary evidence, by judgment and order dated 17th
November 2017 came to the conclusion that the prosecution
has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded
to convict and sentence the accused persons. Insofar as the
appellant is concerned, the trial court held that he is guilty of
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 773
George v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 and 506(2)
of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence
under Section 341 IPC and to undergo life imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo two years simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence
under Section 506(ii) IPC.
3.4 Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons, including the
appellant, filed an appeal before the High Court. Vide impugned
judgment and order, the High Court, partly allowed the appeal
qua the appellant. While sustaining the conviction and sentence
for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, and 302 IPC,
the High Court acquitted the appellant for the charge under
Section 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the
present appeal by way of special leave.
4. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Shri N.R. Elango, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu.
5. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that the learned Judges of the Division Bench
of the High Court have grossly erred in convicting the appellant –
original accused No.1. He submitted that, on the basis of the very
same evidence of Kovilraj (PW-1), the learned Judges of the High
Court have disbelieved the testimony of Kovilraj (PW-1) insofar as
accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. However, on the basis of the
same evidence, the appellant has been convicted. It is therefore
submitted that, on this short ground alone, the appeal deserves to
be allowed.
6. Shri Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the appeal submitting that in view of the concurrent
findings of fact, no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
7. With the assistance of the parties, we have examined the material
placed on record.
8. As submitted by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant, the conviction is based solely on the
testimony of Kovilraj (PW-1). Kovilraj (PW-1), in his evidence,
774 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
stated that a year prior to the occurrence during Immanuel Church
Consecration, accused No.1 i.e., the appellant herein had beaten
up his son (deceased). He stated that the issue was settled in his
village by compromise, thereafter, there was no issue. It is stated that
on 15th May 2015 at 05:00 o’clock in the evening, he along with his
wife Chandra and his son (Praveen Kumar) went to Aananthapuram
from Nazareth. He stated that about 500 persons had participated in
the Consecration Prayer which began at about 06:30 in the evening
and lasted up to 09:00 o’clock in the night. Thereafter, in the Church,
there was a united feast in which he and his family participated
too. He further submitted that, in order to participate in the early
morning 03:00 o’clock prayer, they all stayed in the Church. He stated
that, in the midnight at 12:30 o’clock, his son (deceased) went out.
He saw his son (deceased) standing and talking with his friends,
namely Melvin Abraham, Praveen Immanuel and Gerome. At that
time, the accused persons hurled abuses at his son (deceased). He
stated that the appellant herein threatened his son (deceased) with a
knife and tried to attack the deceased. However, his son (deceased)
escaped and ran directly to the main road. He stated that the accused
persons also ran after his son (deceased). He also stated that he
along with his wife and friends of his son (deceased) also ran behind
them. He stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 held his son (deceased)
by his hands whereas the appellant herein assaulted him with the
knife. His son (deceased) fell down on the ground. Thereafter, his son
(deceased) was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.
9. The High Court has found the evidence of Kovilraj (PW-1) unreliable
insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned and therefore did not
find it safe to convict them and granted them benefit of doubt. The
High Court has observed that the evidence of Kovilraj (PW-1) insofar
as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned appears to be unnatural.
The High Court has also observed that, since the incident had taken
place at around 300 metres away from the Church, it is difficult to
believe that Kovilraj (PW-1) could have actually witnessed the overt
act attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3. However, strangely, the High
Court, on the basis of very same evidence of Kovilraj (PW-1), has
believed it qua the appellant herein and confirmed his conviction.
10. In paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, the learned Judges of
the High Court have observed that in the course of natural events,
except the appellant herein (accused No.1), no one else could have
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 775
George v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
caused the injury to the deceased. In our considered view, the said
finding is based purely on conjectures and surmises.
11. No doubt that a conviction could be based on the sole testimony of
a witness. Equally the principle that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
is not applicable in Indian criminal jurisprudence. However, in the
present case, on the basis of sole testimony of the same witness
(PW-1), the appellant herein has been convicted and the other two
accused, involved in the same incident have been acquitted by giving
them benefit of doubt.
12. Further, in paragraph 23, while disbelieving the testimony of PW-1
qua accused Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court has taken note of the
fact that the incident occurred 300 metres away from the Church
and that could not have enabled PW-1 to have actually witnessed
the overt act that is attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3. However, the
appellant herein involved in the same overt act has been convicted
on the basis of the same testimony of PW-1.
13. It is further to be noted that, in the present case, Kovilraj (PW-1) is
the father of the deceased and is an interested witness. No doubt
that merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot
be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness. However,
the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater
caution and circumspection.
14. In the present case, when the High Court comes to a conclusion
that it is difficult to believe that Kovilraj (PW-1) could have witnessed
the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of
doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the conviction of accused No.1 on
the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis
of conjectures and surmises, in our view, is not permissible.
15. Insofar as the other circumstance with regard to seizure of knife as
could be found from the evidence of Inspector of Police, the testimony
of PW-18 would show that the recovery was made from an open
place accessible to one and all. As such, we are of the considered
opinion that only on the basis of the circumstance of such a recovery,
the conviction could not have been based.
16. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court has
grossly erred in convicting the appellant while giving benefit of doubt
to accused Nos.2 and 3.
776 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 1st November 2019
passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against
him and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in
any other case.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search