* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 234 : 2024 INSC 272
Manikandan
v.
State by the Inspector of Police
(Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2011)
05 April 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the
police and its effect on the prosecution case.
Headnotes
Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses
by the police – Effect:
Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor the material
prosecution witnesses-interested witnesses – It amounts to gross
misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed
to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted
and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses was recorded before the trial court, witnesses
were called to the Police Station and were taught to depose in a
particular manner – Their evidence will have to be discarded as
there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored
by the police on the earlier day – This conduct becomes more
serious as other independent eyewitnesses, though available,
were withheld – Furthermore, defence of the accused was that
they were not present at the place of the incident at the time of the
incident – One of the prosecution witness admitted that accused
was working in another village – Thus, serious doubt created about
the genuineness of the prosecution case – Benefit of substantial
doubt to be given to the appellants – Before the appellants were
enlarged on bail, they had undergone incarceration for more than
10 years – Thus, the courts below erred in convicting the appellants
– Impugned judgments and orders set aside, and the appellants
acquitted of the offences alleged against them. [Paras 8, 9]
Judicial deprecation – Blatant act by the police to tutor the
material prosecution witnesses at the police station:
Held: This amounts to gross misuse of power by the Police
machinery – This kind of interference by the Police with the
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 235
Manikandan v. State by the Inspector of Police
judicial process is shocking – Director General of Police of the
State to cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of the
police officials of tutoring the witnesses at the concerned Police
Station – Appropriate action to be initiated against the erring
officials in accordance with the law. [Paras 8, 10]
Case Law Cited
No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India &
Anr. [2023] 10 SCR 1139 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 882 :
[2023] INSC 648; Ram Manohar Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1084; Ghapoo Yadav
& Ors. v. the State of M.P. [2003] 2 SCR 69 : (2003)
3 SCC 528; Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana [2002]
1 SCR 1152 : (2002) 3 SCC 327; Sandhya Jadhav v.
State of Maharashtra [2006] 3 SCR 632 : (2006) 4 SCC
653; Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. [2004] Supp. 3
SCR 389 : (2004) 11 SCC 381; Pulicherla Nagaraju v.
State of A.P. [2006] Supp. 4 SCR 633 : (2006) 11 SCC
444 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Evidence; Witnesses; Tutoring of witnesses by police; Interested
witnesses; Misuse of power by the police machinery; Eye witnesses;
Incarceration; Judicial process.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1609
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2009 of the High Court
of Madras in CRLA No. 250 of 2009
With
Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
G. Sivabala Murugan, Mailysamy, Selvaraj Mahendran, C.Adhikesavan,
P.V. Hari Krishnan, P. Soma Sundaram, R Nedumaran, B Ragunath,
Mrs. N.C Kavitha, Vijay Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
236 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019 is the accused
no.1, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2011 is the
accused no.2. The Trial Court convicted both the appellants for an
offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). By the impugned
judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and life
sentence of the appellants.
2. We are referring to the prosecution case in brief. The name of the
deceased is Balamurugan. He was staying with his parents – PW-l
Mahalingam and PW-2 Veerammal. According to the prosecution case,
the deceased had instructed accused no.1 to deliver idlis at his home.
On 4th October 2007, at about 9 pm, the deceased came home and
enquired with his mother PW-2 whether accused no.1 had delivered
the idlis. On learning that accused no.1 had not delivered the idlis,
he immediately went out and reached the house of accused no.1. It
appears that there was a commotion due to his altercation with the
accused no.1. According to the prosecution case, after hearing the
commotion, PW-2 and PW-3 (the brother-in-law of the deceased)
rushed to the spot. Accused no.2 was present at the spot. After that,
accused no.1 entered his house, brought with him a billhook and
assaulted the deceased with the billhook. The first blow fell on the
right index finger of the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased ran away
to the nearby garden of one Karunanidhi. The accused followed him.
The accused no.2 held the deceased, and accused no.1 assaulted
the deceased with the billhook on his neck. Both the accused fled
after that. According to the prosecution case, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4
(sister of PW-1), and PW-5 (son of PW-4) witnessed the incident.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that
the first information report shows that the incident occurred at
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 237
Manikandan v. State by the Inspector of Police
10.30 pm. However, from the approximate time of death mentioned
in the post-mortem notes, it appears that the incident must have
happened before 7 pm. His second submission is that though
other independent eyewitnesses were available, the prosecution
had chosen to examine only the witnesses closely related to the
deceased who were interested and tutored witnesses. Therefore,
their testimony deserves to be discarded. Without prejudice, his
further submission is that it was the deceased who went to the
house of accused no.1 to enquire about the failure of accused
no.1 to deliver idlis at his home. The fight started only because
the deceased went to the house of accused no.1. He submitted
that the post-mortem notes show that the deceased sustained one
cut injury on his neck and one minor injury to his finger. He further
submitted that there was a sudden fight between the deceased
and the accused no.1, and in their sudden fight, without any
premeditation, the accused no.1 assaulted the deceased. He would,
therefore, submit that this is a case where Exception 4 of Section
300 of IPC will apply, and thus, it will amount to an offence under
Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC. He relied upon various decisions of
this Court in the cases of:-
(i) No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India
& Anr.1
(ii) Ram Manohar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh2
(iii) Ghapoo Yadav & Ors. v. the State of M.P.3
(iv) Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana4
(v) Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra5
(vi) Prakash Chand v. State of H.P.6
and
(vii) Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P.7
1 [2023] 10 SCR 1139 : 2023 INSC 648 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 882
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1084
3 [2003] 2 SCR 69 : (2003) 3 SCC 528
4 [2002] 1 SCR 1152 : (2002) 3 SCC 327
5 [2006] 3 SCR 632 : (2006) 4 SCC 653
6 [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 389 : (2004) 11 SCC 381
7 [2006] Supp. 4 SCR 633 : (2006) 11 SCC 444
238 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State urged that
the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 is free of any material contradictions
and omissions and, thus, inspires confidence. He submitted that the
fact that accused no.1, after a dispute with the deceased, entered
his house, brought billhook and then assaulted the deceased shows
that there was a clear intention on his part to assault the deceased.
Learned counsel submitted that after one blow was given by the
accused no.1 on the index finger of the deceased, the deceased
attempted to run away. Both the accused chased the deceased; the
accused no.2 held the deceased, and after that, accused no.1 gave
a fatal blow to the neck of the deceased with Billhook. He urged
that Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC will not apply in this case.
OUR VIEW
5. We have perused the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses.
PW-1 is the father of the deceased, who had admittedly not seen
the incident. PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. PW-2 in her
examination-in-chief stated thus:
“About one year ago, my son came at 9.00 P.M. to house.
My son asked me whether the 1st accused Siva had given
idli to me. I told him Siva did not give idli. Immediately
thereafter he said that he will go and ask Siva why he
did not give idli and went from there. Thereafter, after
sometime we heard a sound from the side of Siva’s house.
I ran and saw there. By that time, the 1st accused Siva
had cut my son with the billhook. That cut fell on the index
finger. Immediately my son escaped and ran towards the
tract of Karunanidhi. Immediately Siva and Manikandan
chased my son and ran behind him and Manikandan had
held my son. Siva had cut my son on his neck. My son
inclined and fell down. I ran and screamed ‘Ayyo, Ayyo’.
By hearing my noise, Annappattu, Ganesan, Arivazhagi,
Velayudham came there running. The accused had thrown
the billhook in their hands. After I saw my son, and lifted
him, I came to know that my son was dead.”
6. In her examination-in-chief, she attempted to make out a case that
the accused had spoken ill about her daughter-in-law. Admittedly,
she did not say so in her statement recorded by the police. Most
importantly, in the cross-examination by the advocate for accused
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 239
Manikandan v. State by the Inspector of Police
no.1, she stated, “Yesterday, I, my husband and other witnesses went
to Haridwarmangalam Police station. There, the police authorities
taught us how to adduce evidence.” It is pertinent to note that the
evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 was recorded on 20th November 2008.
Thus, it is apparent that on 19th November 2008, the first five
interested witnesses, PW-1 to PW-5, who were closely related to
the deceased, were called to the Police Station and were taught by
the police how to depose against the accused. It is pertinent to note
that the prosecution did not put questions to the witness by way of
re-examination on this aspect. The investigation officer did not offer
any explanation for this. Therefore, we must proceed on the footing
that the first five witnesses were “taught” at the Police Station how
to depose. This happened a day before the day their evidence was
recorded before the Court.
7. PW-3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He deposed that he
was residing near the house of the accused no.1. His version in the
examination-in-chief about the incident is the same as the version of
PW-2. PW-4 knew the family of the deceased and the accused, as he
stated that the accused were residing in the same colony in which he
was residing. His version of the incident in the examination-in-chief is
the same as that of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-5 also knew the accused
and the family of the deceased as he was also staying in the same
colony in which the accused were staying. His version of the actual
incident of the assault is the same as the other three prosecution
eyewitnesses. PW-3 to PW-5 were admittedly the relatives of the
deceased. PW-5, in his cross-examination, stated that he, along with
five persons, attempted to prevent accused no.1 from assaulting the
deceased. The other five witnesses referred to by PW-5 have not
been examined as witnesses.
8. Thus, the scenario which emerges is that precisely a day before
the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 was recorded before the Trial Court,
they were called to the Police Station and were taught to depose
in a particular manner. One can reasonably imagine the effect of
“teaching” the witnesses inside a Police Station. This is a blatant act
by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses. All of them
were interested witnesses. Their evidence will have to be discarded
as there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored
by the police on the earlier day. This kind of interference by the Police
with the judicial process, to say the least, is shocking. This amounts
240 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to gross misuse of power by the Police machinery. The Police cannot
be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness. This conduct becomes
more serious as other eyewitnesses, though available, were withheld.
We are surprised that both the Courts overlooked this critical aspect.
It is pertinent to note that the defence of the accused, as can be seen
from the line of cross-examination, was that they were not present at
the place of the incident at the time of the incident. PW-2 admitted
that accused no.1 was working in another village called Tirrupur.
Although available, independent witnesses were not examined by
the Prosecution. Therefore, adverse inference must be drawn against
the prosecution. Hence, there is a serious doubt created about the
genuineness of the prosecution case. The benefit of this substantial
doubt must be given to the appellants. Before the appellants were
enlarged on bail by this Court, they had undergone incarceration for
more than 10 years.
9. Therefore, in our considered view, both the Sessions Court and the
High Court have committed an error in convicting the appellants.
Hence, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments and
orders are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of the offences
alleged against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
10. The Director General of Police of the State of Tamil Nadu shall
cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officials
of tutoring PW-1 to PW-5 at the concerned Police Station. Needless
to add, appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring officials
in accordance with the law.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeals allowed.
