Material Omissions Amount To Contradiction: SC Acquits Murder Accused Who Suffered Incarceration For More Than 12 Years

The Apex Court was considering a criminal Appeal challenging the Kerala High Court judgment affirming the conviction of the Appellant in a case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained, “In this case, there are material omissions which amount to contradiction. Coupled with the material omissions, if we consider the conduct of both the witnesses, their version does not inspire confidence.”

Advocate Pranjal Kishore represented the Appellants while AOR Harshad V. Hameed represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2010 when the appellant allegedly stabbed Ramakrishnan (deceased) with a knife. Grievous injuries were caused to the deceased as a consequence of which, he died. According to the case of the prosecution, there was previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased as he was involved in the murder of the appellant’s elder brother.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1,00,000. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence of the appellant had been confirmed in the appeal by the High Court of Kerala.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the evidence of PW-4 and another witness PW-5 who accepted that he did not inform anybody about the incident as he was afraid. As per the Bench, the omissions in the testimony of PW-5 were relevant and therefore, the same amounted to contradiction in view of the explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Bench observed that the statements made by both the eyewitnesses that the appellant inflicted two to three stab wounds on the back of the deceased with a knife were omissions. The version of PW-4 that he was standing at a distance of fifteen feet from the scene of occurrence was also an omission. The statements of PW-5 that PW-4 was present at the time of the incident & the deceased fell on his chest were held to be omissions. Both the witnesses neither took the deceased to a hospital nor reported the incident to the Police. Though other persons were present at the time of the incident, the said witnesses had not been examined. The Bench held that there were material omissions in the present case which amount to contradiction and the version of both the witnesses did not inspire confidence. The only remaining evidence against the appellant was the recovery of the knife at his instance.

On the issue of law relating to the evidentiary value of recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bench referred to the judgment in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023) wherein it has been observed that although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case but they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. “Therefore, in our view, the appellant's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt”, the Bench said.

Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court as well as the Trial Court. Acquitting the appellant of the offences alleged against him and noting that the appellant had undergone incarceration for more than twelve years, the Bench ordered him to be set at liberty unless he was required in connection with any other case.

Cause Title: Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1191)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Pranjal Kishore, Atul Shankar Vinod, Madiya Mushtaq Nadroo, AOR M.P. Vinod

Respondents: AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad

Click here to read/download Judgment