[2025] 7 S.C.R. 160
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3189-3190 of 2023), delivered on 09 May 20251.
Core Issue
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly reversed the acquittal of the accused and convicted them, primarily relying on the testimony of Investigating Officers (IOs) that was founded on statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and voluntary statements of the accused, especially when 71 out of 87 witnesses, including eyewitnesses, had turned hostile.
Factual Background
The prosecution alleged that A1 (Renuka Prasad) and his brother (PW4) were in a dispute over ancestral property and educational institutions4. The deceased, an employee of A1’s institution, later joined an institution managed by PW4. According to the prosecution, A1, with other co-accused (A2-A4) and contract killers (A5-A6), conspired to murder the deceased due to his active involvement in the sibling rivalry4. The deceased was brutally murdered on 28 April 2011, in front of his son (PW8), who lodged the First Information Statement (FIS)4.
Lower Courts’ Decisions
The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, finding no support for the prosecution’s case from the large number of witnesses, as most, except official witnesses, turned hostile5. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted A1 to A6 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18606.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the acquittal by the Trial Court37. The Court highlighted several critical flaws in the High Court’s reasoning:
• Hostile Witnesses: A significant 71 out of 87 witnesses, including crucial eyewitnesses like PW8 (the deceased’s son), turned hostile2…. PW8, despite lodging the FIS, failed to identify the assailants in court or the recovered weapons9. Other key witnesses also denied their Section 161 statements related to motive, conspiracy, and preparation10….
• Inadmissibility of Section 161 CrPC Statements: The Supreme Court unequivocally held that the High Court seriously erred in relying on statements made by witnesses under Section 161 CrPC as substantive evidence, merely because IOs affirmed them2…. Section 162 CrPC clearly states that such statements can only be used for contradicting a witness, not as proof of facts15. The Court noted that the prosecution’s “story” of motive, conspiracy, and preparation remained “a mere scripted story”1116.
• Reliance on IOs’ Testimony: The High Court’s conviction was based “wholly on the testimony of the IOs, who merely regurgitated the statements recorded u/s.161 and the voluntary statements of the accused”3…. The Supreme Court emphasized that what an IO states about what was revealed during investigation must be independently established in court by oral testimony or other evidence; a conviction cannot be based on the IO’s “predilection”217.
• Section 27 Evidence Act (Discovery of Fact): While acknowledging that police officers’ testimonies regarding discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be relied upon if trustworthy18…, the Court cautioned that the discovery must be “necessarily connected to the crime and the accused”20. In this case, the recovery of clothes and machetes was based on A3’s confession, who was an alleged conspirator, not an assailant21…. The Court reiterated that Section 27 only makes admissible “so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered”2425. Confessions of past user or the crime itself are inadmissible25. Crucially, the recovered items were not connected to the alleged assailants (A5 & A6) by independent evidence, and it was not even verified if the clothes fit them2223.
• Section 30 Evidence Act (Co-accused Confession): The Court clarified that a confession of a co-accused (even if admissible under Section 27 to the extent of discovery) cannot by itself inculpate the person who made the confession if there’s no independent evidence connecting it to the crime, and certainly cannot be used to inculpate other accused under Section 3026. This aligns with established precedents like Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor24… and Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh32.
• No “Two Probable Views”: The Court found that there were no “two probable views” emerging from the evidence, which would typically favour the accused3334. Instead, “the only view that comes forth is that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused”3334.
• Surmises and Conjectures: The High Court’s judgment was based on “mere surmises and conjectures”35. The Court acknowledged the “consternation” of the High Court due to a cold-blooded murder going unpunished but stressed that such feelings cannot justify a conviction without legal evidence, warning against “purely moral conviction”36.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and acquitted the appellants of all charges, restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal37.
