A) Abstract / Headnote

The Supreme Court in Periyasamy v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police overturned the convictions of the accused under Sections 302, 307, and 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, citing significant investigative lapses and lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment highlighted the discrepancies in witness testimonies, reliance on interested witnesses, failure to examine independent witnesses, and inadequacies in medical and scientific evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of fair and thorough police investigations as the backbone of criminal proceedings. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions were set aside.

Keywords: Beyond reasonable doubt, Faulty investigation, Interested witnesses, Independent witnesses, Right of private defence.

B) Case Details

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Periyasamy v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2019
• iii) Judgment Date: 18 March 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol
• vi) Author: Justice Sanjay Karol
• vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 747 : 2024 INSC 212
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 307, 302/109, 307/109 IPC
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None specifically cited.
• x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Procedural Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The case arose from a violent altercation at Saravana Wine Shop, resulting in two deaths and injuries to others. The trial and high courts convicted the accused, relying on testimonies of injured witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The appellants contested the convictions, raising concerns about the credibility of evidence and procedural fairness.

D) Facts of the Case

On March 3, 2002, an altercation occurred at a wine shop involving the deceased, Dharmalingam (D1) and Sakthivel (D2), and the accused, Periyasamy (A1) and R. Manoharan (A2). The confrontation escalated after D1 demanded liquor on credit. A1 allegedly stabbed D1 fatally, causing injuries to others, while A2 was accused of abetting A1. An FIR was filed, and the prosecution presented 22 witnesses and various exhibits.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges against A1 and A2 beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the evidence of injured witnesses, interested witnesses, and lack of independent witnesses impacted the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
3. Whether procedural delays and investigative lapses affected the outcome.
4. Whether the right of private defence applied to A1’s actions.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Interested Witnesses: The witnesses were related to the deceased and biased.
2. Lack of Independent Witnesses: Prosecution failed to examine neutral witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public space.
3. Investigative Lapses: Delays in FIR registration, evidence collection, and inconsistencies in medical evidence.
4. Right of Private Defence: A1 acted under provocation and fear for his life.
5. Unreliable Medical Evidence: Prosecution’s reliance on unexamined medical personnel weakened the case.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Credibility of Injured Witnesses: Injured witnesses’ testimonies should hold more weight.
2. Consistency in Testimonies: The evidence of witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Irrelevance of Delays: Procedural delays did not compromise the substantive evidence.
4. No Private Defence: The violent actions of A1 were disproportionate and unwarranted.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.
2. Section 307 IPC: Attempt to murder.
3. Section 109 IPC: Abetment of offence.

I) Judgment

a) Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to critical lapses in investigation and reliance on compromised evidence.

b) Obiter Dicta

The Court criticized the investigation, noting poor police practices and the importance of scientific methods in modern criminal justice.

c) Guidelines

1. Importance of independent witnesses in public incidents.
2. Need for expeditious and impartial police investigations.
3. Critical role of medical evidence and its proper presentation in criminal trials.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment underscores the significance of procedural integrity and credible evidence in criminal trials. It serves as a reminder of the high threshold of proof required in criminal convictions and the detrimental impact of investigative shortcomings on justice delivery.

K) References

Important Cases Referred:

1. Raghbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana [2008] 15 SCR 1108 : (2008) 16 SCC 33.
2. James Martin v. State of Kerala [2003] Suppl. 6 SCR 910 : (2004) 2 SCC 203.
3. Vidhya Singh v. State of M.P. (1971) 3 SCC 244.
4. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2010] 1 SCR 642 : (2010) 2 SCC 333.
5. Rajesh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023] 15 SCR 1 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202.

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.