Five acquitted in brutal killing of Dalit party leader after Madras High Court found eyewitness accounts unreliable and investigation riddled with gaps

The deceased, Vivekananthan, a Scheduled Caste member and political party office-bearer, was allegedly attacked with sickles by appellants A1–A5 near Sunbeam School on 31 January 2024.

The prosecution relied principally on P.W.2 and P.W.3 as eyewitnesses, along with motive evidence, recoveries and toll-gate CCTV footage.

The trial court convicted A1–A5 under provisions including Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, with applicable provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, while acquitting them of other charges and acquitting A6–A11.

A1 and A2–A5 appealed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, projected as eyewitnesses, was reliable enough to sustain the appellants’ convictions.

Whether the prosecution proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeals were brought under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The convictions under review arose under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and, as applicable to individual appellants, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court applied the criminal-law requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, assessing whether the eyewitness accounts and other evidence reliably established the accused’s participation.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court found material doubts about both eyewitness accounts.

P.W.2’s presence and account were undermined by his failure to report the incident promptly, his omission to identify the accused in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the absence of evidence of his alleged injuries, and inconsistencies about who accompanied the deceased.

P.W.3’s account was treated as a later improvement, given his delayed disclosure and the delay in recording and forwarding his statement; his account also conflicted with P.W.7’s evidence.

The Court additionally noted unexplained delay in the complaint and FIR, unexamined police witnesses, missing call-detail and accident-record evidence, and inconclusive CCTV footage.

In that context, the recovery and serological evidence did not independently establish the appellants’ guilt.

Taken cumulatively, these deficiencies left the prosecution’s case short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences of A1–A5, and acquitted them of all charges.

The acquittals of A1–A5 on the other charges and of A6–A11 remained undisturbed.

The Court directed that A1–A5 be released unless required in another case and that any fines paid be refunded.