The Supreme Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies cannot overshadow credible evidence if a “ring of truth” exists. The apex court upheld life imprisonment for five accused in the brutal 2007 teacher murder case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has upheld the life imprisonment of five individuals convicted for the brutal murder of a school teacher in 2007, dismissing all appeals against the Madras High Court’s verdict. The Bench, consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not undermine credible evidence if a “ring of truth” exists.
Background of the Case
On July 12, 2007, a school teacher was attacked while returning home on his motorcycle. The assailants, driven by prior land disputes, allegedly intercepted him using a ninja chain and struck him repeatedly with sickles, resulting in his immediate death.
Initially, the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused, citing contradictions in the prosecution’s version and medical evidence. However, the victim’s widow appealed, and in December 2021, the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal for five accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment while maintaining the acquittal for the others.
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of the following individuals under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 148, and 341 of the IPC:
- Murugesan @ Shanmugasundaram (A-1)
- Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti (A-2)
- Palavesaraj @ Palavesamuthu (A-3)
- Kulasekarapandian (A-4)
- Biledy Ganesan @ Selvaganesan (A-10)
Arguments Presented
Defence
The defence argued that the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s acquittal, citing:
- Material Contradictions – The post-mortem report did not show injuries consistent with being dragged into a plantain grove, contradicting witness accounts.
- Interested Witnesses – Eye-witnesses (the victim’s brother and brother-in-law) were biased and gave inconsistent testimonies.
- Delay in FIR – The FIR reached the Judicial Magistrate almost 15 hours later, suggesting potential manipulation.
- A-10’s Alleged Late Involvement – The accused was not named in the initial FIR.
Prosecution
Represented by Senior Counsel Ms. N.S. Nappinai, the prosecution highlighted:
- Corroboration – Eye-witness testimonies matched 11 injuries recorded in the post-mortem report.
- Motive – Previous FIRs regarding land disputes established intent.
- Prompt Complaint – Delay in forwarding the FIR was due to the magistrate’s unavailability, not tampering.
- Medical Evidence – Injuries attributed to A-10 were confirmed by medical experts.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adopting a nuanced approach while evaluating witness testimonies, stating that minor exaggerations or “embroidery” do not negate the core truth of the evidence. Key points included:
- Consistency in Testimonies – Eyewitnesses consistently described the attack and interception using the ninja chain.
- Medical Corroboration – Post-mortem findings matched witness accounts, including specific injuries caused by A-10.
- Minor Discrepancies – The difference regarding the victim’s body location was deemed minor and insufficient to discard the case.
- A-10’s Inclusion – Naming A-10 a day after the FIR did not weaken the case, as evidence corroborated his involvement.
The Court cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Singh (1988), emphasizing the duty of courts to extract “nuggets of truth” even if witnesses exaggerate or embellish parts of their testimony.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Overlooks Another Chance to Set Clear Guidelines on Remission
The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, affirming that the High Court correctly established premeditated murder with common intention. The five accused will continue serving life imprisonment, upholding justice for the victim and his family.
Case Title:
Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Anr. (and connected appeals)
Criminal Appeal No. 2030 Of 2022
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on the Supreme Court