The Supreme Court set aside the life sentence of Talari Naresh in a murder case, holding that hostile witness evidence may be relied upon not only to convict an accused but also to discredit the prosecution case and sustain an acquittal.
Supreme Court Explains Value Of Hostile Witness Evidence
The Supreme Court has held that courts may rely on hostile witness testimony not only to convict an accused, but also to test and reject the prosecution case.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while acquitting Talari Naresh in a murder case concerning the death of Shiva Shankar, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category.
Justice N.V. Anjaria authored the judgment.
The Court said that if the evidence of a hostile witness inspires confidence, courts may read it with other oral and documentary evidence. Such evidence can also support an order of acquittal.
The Bench observed that courts can use hostile witness testimony to discredit the prosecution version. It added that an acquittal may rest on such evidence when the record supports that conclusion.
Conviction Under IPC And SC/ST Act Set Aside
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Talari Naresh.
The Trial Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District had convicted him for the murder of Shiva Shankar on May 12, 2013.
The Telangana High Court confirmed the conviction on February 4, 2025. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Prosecution Alleged Dispute After Elopement
According to the prosecution, the deceased had eloped with the appellant’s younger sister on February 14, 2013. She was 18 years old at the time.
The prosecution claimed that a village Panchayat later met to resolve the issue.
The Panchayat allegedly decided that the deceased would leave Ogipur village. It also decided that the girl would stay at her parental home.
The prosecution said that the deceased later returned to the village to attend a friend’s wedding.
It alleged that the appellant confronted him in the morning when he passed near the appellant’s house.
A quarrel allegedly followed. The prosecution claimed that the appellant attacked the deceased with a stone.
The deceased later died while he was being shifted to a hospital in Hyderabad.
Hostile Witnesses Shook The Prosecution Case
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the incident in the manner alleged.
The Court examined the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5. All four witnesses had turned hostile.
The Bench found that their evidence created serious doubt about the place of occurrence.
It held that their combined testimony weakened the foundation of the prosecution case.
The Court said the prosecution could not establish that the incident happened as alleged.
No Independent Witness Examined From Public Place
The Supreme Court also noted that the alleged scene of offence was a main road near quarries.
Trucks and lorries allegedly moved through the area during both day and night.
Despite this, the prosecution did not examine any independent witness from the nearby area.
The Court found this significant because the alleged incident took place in an open public place with vehicular traffic.
It held that the prosecution failed to prove the occurrence itself.
Trial Court And High Court Erred, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found the evidence weak, contradictory and insufficient.
It held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench said the Trial Court and the Telangana High Court committed a concurrent error by convicting the appellant.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both courts.
The appeal was allowed.
