Court Cites Doubts on Eyewitness Credibility and Procedural Lapses; Acquits Accused in High-Profile Case
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench has overturned the conviction of Rajesh and two others, who were sentenced for their alleged roles in a caste-based murder. The Division Bench comprising Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan delivered the verdict on June 2, 2026, allowing the criminal appeal filed by the appellants and setting aside the trial court's judgment.
The case revolved around the brutal murder of Rajini, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, allegedly by members of a non-Scheduled Caste community. The trial court had convicted Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6 based on eyewitness testimonies and other evidence, while acquitting Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7. However, the High Court found the evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly the selective reliance on eyewitness testimonies that were deemed indivisible.
The court highlighted several procedural and evidentiary lapses that undermined the prosecution's case. These included unexplained delays in FIR registration, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and unreliable witness testimonies regarding the alleged criminal conspiracy. The court was particularly critical of the trial court's reliance on evidence from a separate case without allowing the accused to address the incriminating material during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The judgment emphasized the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that any unresolved doubts must benefit the accused. The court noted the lack of independent corroboration of the eyewitness accounts and the failure to reconcile discrepancies in the number of injuries reported by medical and eyewitness evidence.
Ultimately, the High Court acquitted the appellants of all charges, ordered the refund of fines paid, and terminated their bail bonds. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding fair trial standards and the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Bottom line:-
Selective reliance on eyewitness testimony is impermissible when the evidence forms an indivisible narrative attributing specific acts to all accused. Acquittal of co-accused raises doubt over the conviction of remaining accused without corroboration.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 120B, 341, 294(b), 506(ii), and 302
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(ca)
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313
Rajesh v. State, (Madras)(DB)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2913178
