Supreme Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Testimony

The Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of George in the murder case of Praveen Kumar, highlighting the significance of consistent and reliable witness testimony. The Court found that the sole eyewitness, Kovilraj (the victim’s father), provided an inconsistent account of the incident, leading to the acquittal of two other accused individuals based on the same testimony. This discrepancy in the witness's narrative raised serious doubts about the reliability of his evidence, ultimately leading to George's release.

The case originates from a 2015 incident where Praveen Kumar was fatally stabbed outside a church in Ananthapuram, Tamil Nadu. Kovilraj, the victim’s father, filed an FIR accusing George, Rajarathinam, and Albert of the murder. Kovilraj alleged that the incident stemmed from a previous dispute between his son and the accused parties regarding a church election.

On inconsistent witness testimony, the Court noted that the High Court, while relying on Kovilraj’s testimony to convict George, had acquitted the other two accused due to the “unnatural” and unreliable nature of his evidence concerning their involvement. This created a contradiction as the same witness testimony was used to reach different conclusions for different individuals involved in the same incident.

Unreliable Eyewitness Account: The High Court had also pointed out the improbability of Kovilraj accurately witnessing the events, given that the incident occurred 300 meters away from the church where he was initially present.

The Apex Court acknowledged that Kovilraj, being the victim’s father, was an interested witness. While not a reason to automatically dismiss his testimony, the Court emphasized the need for greater caution and scrutiny when evaluating such evidence and held that "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."

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's conviction of George, based solely on the inconsistent and unreliable testimony of Kovilraj, was essentially grounded in conjecture and surmise, which is not permissible in criminal law. The Court also brought the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything)" principle of jurisprudance is not applicable in indian jurispurdence, however, the court reitrated that with the same testimony one accused is convicted and others are acquitted by giving the benifit of doubt.

On lack of corroborating evidence the recovery of a knife, while part of the case, was deemed insufficient to support a conviction as it was found in an open, publicly accessible area the Court held "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 10 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."

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of credible and consistent eyewitness accounts in criminal trials. The acquittal of George serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be solely based on assumptions or unreliable testimony, even when tragic circumstances are involved.

Coram: Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. V. Viswanathan.
Between: George Vs State of Tamil Nadu & ors
Date of Judgment: 13-12-2024