Supreme Court Upholds High Court Convictions of Five for Murder and Dismisses Appeals

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard appeals by special leave against a common judgment of the Madras High Court which reversed acquittals recorded by the Sessions Court and convicted five accused of murder under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 148 and 341, IPC. The appeals challenged the High Court’s 7 December 2021 ruling and the reversal of the trial court’s order of acquittal in respect of selected accused.

The Court summarised that on a conspectus of direct and circumstantial evidence the High Court was justified in convicting A‑1 to A‑4 and A‑10. It held that motive, contemporaneous complaint and medical evidence together with recoveries provided corroboration that could not be lightly discarded and that there was sufficient proof of "premeditated murder with common intention". The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having given thoughtful consideration, in our opinion, a nuanced approach is essential for evaluating testimony of witnesses in the Indian context, acknowledging human imperfections and contextual factors. While looking at statements of witnesses given in court, every detail need not be nitpicked; the overall impact that the testimony generates has to be considered... After all, it is the duty of the court to sift the grain from the chaff!" The Court also noted the High Court’s articulation that "when a premeditated act is committed in furtherance of a shared design, liability attaches equally to all, irrespective of individual injury inflicted."

Background

The prosecution case arose from an attack on 12 July 2007 when the victim, a school teacher, was intercepted while returning home on his motorcycle and fatally assaulted. Two close relatives (PWs 1 and 2) followed the victim and described how several persons armed with sickles and a ninja chain stopped and attacked him; the victim died on the spot. A written complaint was lodged the same day and an FIR was forwarded to the magistrate the next morning. The autopsy (Ext. P‑25) recorded multiple incised and lacerated injuries, including severance of the left wrist and deep wounds to neck and head.

During investigation police seized a broken ninja chain at the scene and recovered multiple sickles pursuant to confessional statements; a sniffer dog was deployed and was shown to have gone from the scene towards the residence of one accused. Several witnesses later turned hostile at trial; the Sessions Court acquitted all accused on 1 September 2009. On appeal the High Court overturned the acquittals of five accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment relying principally on the ocular testimony of PWs 1 and 2, the post‑mortem report and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act, while maintaining acquittal of other co‑accused.

Defence counsel urged that material contradictions, omissions in early statements, physical improbabilities (including the alleged rolling of the body through thorn fences and absence of bloodstains at the roadway), delay in forwarding the FIR, and the failure to prove conspiracy and motive required restoration of acquittal. The State and the victim’s widow contended that the High Court correctly sifted inconsistent material and relied on corroborative medical and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court applied established principles on assessment of witness testimony consistency, credibility, corroboration and motive referring to precedents such as Anil Singh and related decisions, and rejected the contention that minor contradictions required discarding the prosecution case where there remained a "ring of truth in the main." Concluding that the High Court’s appreciation was not perverse, the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed conviction and sentences imposed by the High Court. No interim directions or modification of sentence were issued.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2030–2033 of 2022; 2025 INSC 1478 (Non‑reportable)
Case Title: Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti & Anr. v. State rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr.; connected appeals including Kulasekarapandian v. P. Thilagavathy & Anr.; Biledy Ganesan @ Selvaganesan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr.; Murugesan @ Shanmugasundaram v. State rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepak Prakash (for A‑1), Mr. R. Prabhakaran and Ms. Sowmya (for A‑4), Mr. Navin Pahwa (for A‑10) and other counsel for respective appellants.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. N.S. Nappinai (for Respondent No.2, widow of the deceased), Mr. Krishnamoorthy (for the State).