New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the conviction and life sentence of two accused booked for murder resulting from a scuffle over the delivery of idlis in Tamil Nadu. The accused had undergone more than 10 years of incarceration. A bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said the court is surprised that both the trial court and the Madra High Court overlooked the critical aspect of tutoring the witnesses in the case. According to the prosecution, Manikandan and Sivakumar allegedly killed a person named Balamurugan on October 4, 2007. Balamurugan was killed after a scuffle which arose over the delivery of idlis at his home by Manikandan.
The apex court directed the Tamil Nadu police chief to conduct an inquiry and initiate action against the erring officials, after terming the “teaching” of witnesses in a criminal case inside a police station as “shocking”. The apex court said police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witnesses as it amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery.
The apex court said that one can reasonably imagine the effect of ‘teaching’ the witnesses inside a police station. This is a blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses and all of them were interested witnesses, said the bench. The apex court noted that other eyewitnesses in the case, though available, were withheld by the police.
The bench decided to discard the evidence saying that there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the police on the earlier day. “This kind of interference by the police with the judicial process, to say the least, is shocking,” said the bench.
The apex court directed the Director General of Police of the state of Tamil Nadu to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the police officers in tutoring the prosecution witnesses at the police station concerned. “Needless to add, appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring officials under the law,” said the apex court. The apex court noted that the defence of the accused, as can be seen from the line of cross-examination, was that they were not present at the place of the incident at the time of the incident.
The bench said a prosecution witness has admitted that one of the two accused was working in another village called Tirrupur and although independent witnesses in the case were available, they were not examined by the prosecution. The apex court noted that before the appellants were enlarged on bail by it, they had undergone incarceration for more than 10 years.
