Selective Reliance on Indivisible Eyewitness Testimony is Impermissible Without Independent Corroboration

The deceased, Rajini, a Scheduled Caste political functionary, was allegedly murdered on 09.07.2021 by Seven accused persons belonging to a non-Scheduled Caste community

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to kill Rajini after he intervened in a caste-based abuse incident involving A6 and one Yogeswaran

While Rajini was on a two-wheeler, he was intercepted and brutally assaulted with weapons

P.W.1 (brother) and P.W.2 claimed to be eyewitnesses

The Trial Court acquitted A3, A4, A5, and A7 due to lack of evidence, but convicted A1, A2, and A6 for offences including Section 302 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, and various sections of the SC/ST (POA) Act

The appellants (A1, A2, A6) challenged this conviction before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

1. Whether the conviction of A1, A2, and A6 is sustainable when the Trial Court acquitted co-accused based on the same set of "indivisible" eyewitness testimony.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) beyond reasonable doubt despite unnatural witness conduct and procedural delays.

3. Whether the delay in registration and transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate was fatal to the prosecution's case.

4. Whether the Trial Court committed a procedural error by relying on a separate judgment (S.C.No.33 of 2021) and materials not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC, and Section 3(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act

The court applied Section 313 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that incriminating material must be put to the accused to afford them an opportunity to explain

The court invoked the principle of "separating grain from the chaff," but noted its limitations when witness testimony is "indivisible"

The court applied settled principles on circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, noting that recoveries from open, public places lack evidentiary value

The High Court found the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 unreliable because their account assigned specific overt acts to all accused, yet the Trial Court selectively accepted it for A1, A2, and A6 while rejecting it for others

The High Court held this selective application was improper because the narrative was "indivisible"

Regarding conspiracy, the conduct of P.W.12 and P.W.16 was deemed "unnatural" as they allegedly overheard the plan but warned no one; further, their statements reached the court three months late

The court highlighted a critical procedural flaw: the Trial Judge relied on a conviction in a cross-matter (S.C.No.33 of 2021) to establish motive, but failed to put this incriminating material to the accused during the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination

Additionally, scientific evidence failed to link blood on the weapons to the deceased, and the FIR reached the Magistrate with an unexplained 14-hour delay, creating room for embellishment

The Court ruled that the "foundation" of the case—the FIR and eyewitness presence—was doubtful, causing the "superstructure" to fall

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 19.01.2023 made in Spl.SC.No.32 of 2021

The appellants (A1, A2, and A6) were acquitted of all charges, their bail bonds terminated, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded