Discrepant Medical Evidence and Hostile Witness Testimony; Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict.

While hearing a matter pertaining to Prevention of SC/ST Act, Murder, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of appellant, citing reasons such as, hostile witness, glaring inconsistencies in post-mortem roports and failure to prove a clear motive, the Supreme Court set aside a life sentence for murder.

Background: The matter is stemmed form an incident from May 2013, where the deceased, Shiva Shankar (belonging to a Scheduled Caste), was allegedly beaten to death with a stone by the appellant, Talari Naresh.

Prosecution’s story was that, the attack was a retaliatory act because the deceased had eloped with the appellant's younger sister a few months prior. According to the state, a village Panchayat had previously mediated the dispute, directing the deceased to remain outside the village.

The appellant was accused of confronting the deceased upon his return for a wedding, hitting him with a "shabad stone" (a type of local stone used for flooring) that caused fatal head injuries. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, alongside Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

When the sentence was challenged in the Telangana High Court, it was upheld by the High Court, agrieved by which the appellant challenged these findings before the Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence was contradictory and the prosecution had failed to establish the basic facts of the case.

The Apex Court clarified that the testimony of hostile witnesses can be effectively utilized to support an acquittal when it undermines the reliability of the evidence.

Observing that the lower courts had committed a "concurrent error" in ignoring the crumbling nature of the prosecution’s evidence and noted that the "very fulcrum" of the prosecution's case collapsed because the key witnesses, Narendar (PW3), turned hostile. The witness who was supposed to be the informant, denied ever going to the deceased's mother (PW1) to inform her of the attack.

The Bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, delivered several critical observations on the appreciation of evidence in criminal trials:

on the doctrine of "Reliability of Hostile and Interested Witnesses" the Apex Court noted that the "very fulcrum" of the prosecution's case collapsed because the key witnesses turned hostile. Narendar (PW3), who was supposed to be the informant, denied ever going to the deceased's mother (PW1) to inform her of the attack. Furthermore, the individuals alleged to have conducted the village Panchayat (PW4 and PW5) denied that any such meeting ever took place. The Court observed that while the mother of the deceased (PW1) is not mechanically rejected as a witness, her status as an "interested witness" requires extra caution, especially when her narrative is directly contradicted by other evidence.

Reaffirming the principle in Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, the judges clarified that a post-mortem report is not substantive evidence; it is merely a previous statement that must be corroborated by the doctor’s oral testimony in court and since the medical officer (PW7) could not explain the time-of-death inconsistencies, the medical set of evidence was deemed to have "nil" evidentiary value.

The Evidentiary Value of Post-Mortem Reports A significant portion of the judgment addressed the "diminished" value of the medical evidence. The Court found blatant discrepancies in the Post-mortem Report (Ex. P8), where the conclusion dates and times were irreconcilable. Reaffirming the principle in Ghulam Hassan Beigh, the judges clarified that a post-mortem report is not substantive evidence; it is merely a previous statement that must be corroborated by the doctor’s oral testimony in court. Since the medical officer (PW7) could not explain the time-of-death inconsistencies, the medical set of evidence was deemed to have "nil" evidentiary value.

Failure to Examine Independent Witnesses The Court took a dim view of the fact that although the crime allegedly occurred on a public road "humming with vehicular traffic" near quarries, the prosecution did not examine a single independent witness from the vicinity. This failure, coupled with the Investigating Officer's admission that the crime scene was not protected and only visited the following day, created substantial doubt regarding the actual occurrence of the incident as described.

Acquittal Based on Hostile Testimony In a vital legal clarification, the Court ruled that just as hostile witness testimony can sometimes be used to convict, the reverse is also true as the statements made by hostile witnesses that inspire credibility can be properly employed to discredit the prosecution's narrative and found a conclusion of acquittal.

Thus on the grounds of hostile witness, glaring inconsistencies in post-mortem roports and failure of the prosecution to prove a clear motive, the Supreme Court set aside the life sentence of the appellant.

CORAM: JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA AND JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA.