Truth Is Always A Chimera & Illusion Surrounding It Can Only Be Removed By Valid Evidence Led: Supreme Court While Acquitting Murder Accused

The Supreme Court while acquitting accused persons in a murder case, remarked that the truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led.

The Court was hearing Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the High Court’s Division Bench which reversed the acquittal and convicted two accused under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “We cannot but say that the High Court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available. Truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect, and in the event of it being circumstantial, providing a chain of circumstances with connecting links leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and only the guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for any hypothesis of innocence.”

The Bench enunciated that when even the recovery made based on a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), by itself cannot inculpate the person who made such a confession, if there is no independent evidence otherwise connecting the fact discovered to the crime, there is no question of such a confession being made use of, to inculpate the other accused under Section 30 of IEA.

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Ratnakar Dash appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Accused while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Aman Panwar appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

In this case, 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye-witnesses turned hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses. Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants. The prosecution alleged that due to differences arising from sharing of assets of the father, an entrepreneur who set up several educational institutions, A1 and his brother were at loggerheads. The deceased, an employee of one of the institutions, later allotted to the share of A1, resigned to join an institution managed by AI’s brother, after the division of assets.

The enmity of A1 arose due to the active involvement of the deceased in the sibling rivalry, aligning himself with brother, to the hilt. Allegedly, A1 along with his employees A2 to A4 engaged A5 and A6, through A7, an Advocate, to murder the deceased. A5 and A6 allegedly carried out the brutal murder, hacking the deceased to death, in front of his son, who immediately contacted his relatives and the deceased was rushed to the hospital where he breathed his last. An FIR was lodged by the son and thereafter, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding no support for the prosecution case from the large number of witnesses. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused. This was challenged before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “In the present case, we have already held that the confession under Section 27 cannot be relied upon and there is no question of any aid being drawn from it to implicate the other accused. As far as the sites pointed out by A1, we have found that it did not lead to any discovery of a fact and it is hit by Section 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act.”

The Court held that the judgment of the High Court reversing the Order of acquittal of the Trial Court proceeds on mere surmises and conjectures relying wholly on the testimony of the Investigating Officers, who merely regurgitated the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and the voluntary statements of the accused.

“As has been rightly pointed out in Ramesh v. State of Haryana24 when the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is resiled from, there arises a possibility that the police coerced such statements, but considering the huge prevalence of such instances, as in the present case, of the entire witnesses turning hostile, there could be various other factors also. It could be for fear of deposing against the accused, political pressure, pressure from family or society and even instances of monetary consideration”, it further noted.

The Court observed that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is only to aid the investigation but keeping in mind the fact that it could always lend support to an identification made in Court, which unfortunately in this case was not made either in Court or at the stage of investigation.

“We find absolutely no reason to sustain the conviction entered by the High Court, reversing the order of acquittal. … the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for reasons unknown”, it added.

The Court was of the view that prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery and witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind.

“We can only accede to and share the consternation of the Division Bench of the High Court, which borders on desperation, due to the futility of the entire exercise. That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence. With a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed, we acquit the accused reversing the judgment of the High Court and restoring that of the Trial Court”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, acquitted the accused, and ordered their release from the custody.

Cause Title- Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented By Assistant Superintendent Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 657)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra, Ratnakar Dash, AORs G. Sivabalamurugan, Vaijayanthi Girish, Advocates Selvaraj Mahendran, C. Adhikesavan, P.V. Harikrishnan, C. Kavin Ananth, and Girish Ananthamurthy.

Respondent: AAG Aman Panwar, AOR V. N. Raghupathy, and Advocate Shrey Kuldeep Brahmbhatt.

Click here to read/download the Judgment