In the case of Agniraj & Ors. v. State, which was heard on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark verdict. In this judgment, the court overturned the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had convicted eleven accused individuals in a horrible triple murder.
Not only is this judgment significant because of its outcome, but it is also notable because of the legal concepts that it cited, particularly in consideration of evidence standards and the function of appellate courts in accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution.
The case touches upon important aspects of criminal law and raises important problems regarding the scope of appellate review in the criminal justice system, the trustworthiness of witnesses, and the due process of the law regarding criminal cases.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
A Concise Review of the Situation
Due to a politically sensitive struggle that occurred in the rural panchayat politics of Tamil Nadu, this case has arisen. It had been almost forty years since the family of Accused No. 1 had exercised authority over the Panchayat Board in the local community.
Nevertheless, in the elections that took place in 2011, the wife of PW-1 (Krishnan), a political figure who was in opposition to him, won the president. Kathiresan, the brother of PW-1, was an extremely important figure in the outcome of the election campaign.
During the evening of November 14, 2012, Kathiresan, his son Prasanna, his daughter Nikila (PW-9), and their driver were ambushed while they were traveling, as stated by the prosecution.
It is stated that a truck collided with their vehicle, causing it to come to a stop. Three people were killed and Nikila, who was a juvenile, was injured when armed intruders assaulted the vehicle and its occupants with lethal weapons.
The appellants were among those who carried out the attack. The first witness, PW-1, stated that he had seen the assault from a nearby bush, where he had concealed himself. In the end, eleven of the twenty-one individuals who were implicated were found guilty after the FIRs were filed and a charge sheet was created against them.
Legal Matters of Fundamental Importance Before the Court
The most important questions that were addressed in the appeal were whether or not the trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of fair procedure, the credibility of the witnesses who testified for the prosecution, and the trustworthiness of the forensic and circumstantial evidence.
Additionally, the case afforded the Supreme Court the opportunity to elucidate the function of the appellate jurisdiction as outlined in Article 136 of the Constitution, particularly in the context of criminal cases that involve concurrent rulings by subordinate courts.
An Evaluation of the Witnesses for the Prosecution
The court carried out an in-depth investigation into the three most important witnesses, who were identified as PW-1 (Krishnan), PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu), and PW-9 (Nikila). Their testimony were found to be plagued with contradictions, delays, and holes in the procedures that were followed.
According to PW-1, who stated that he had watched the incident while hiding in a bush, thirty-six individuals were first designated as the perpetrators of the attack. Subsequently, he agreed to drop the accusations that had been brought against fifteen of them.
His interpretation of the events was inflated, inconsistent, and there were indications that he was motivated by politics. Prior to filing the case, he admitted that he had received help from members of his political party. It is important to note that his visibility of the incident throughout the night from the hiding location was not confirmed in an adequate manner.
Although PW-2, a buddy who claimed to be passing by the area with another individual named Abdul Rahman, did not report the occurrence for more than forty days, it was ultimately reported.
This delay, which cannot be explained, in conjunction with the fact that the prosecution did not conduct an examination of Abdul Rahman, further undermined the credibility of his account.
During the incident, PW-9, who was a minor, sustained injuries and testified after a period of two years. Prior to the administration of the oath, the court made note of the fact that obligatory preliminary questions were not asked in order to evaluate her capacity to testify against the defendant.
As a result of her age, the absence of test identification, and the fact that her mother had provided her with tutoring, her testimony was found to be unreliable.
An Examination of the Circumstantial and Forensic Investigations
According to the prosecution, fingerprint evidence was provided that purportedly linked Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to the scene of the crime. On the other hand, the court did identify some procedural errors, such as the absence of a mahazar (record) throughout the process of collecting fingerprints or taking images of the prints.
In the courtroom, the images were not displayed, and there was no official record that could be found that would have shown how or from whom the prints were obtained. In light of these deficiencies, the court decided to reject the fingerprint evidence.
Another essential component of the prosecution’s case, the recovery of weapons, was also called into question. Weapons were allegedly retrieved from open public locations at different occasions, according to the reports.
The authenticity of these recoveries is called into question due to the fact that the location and the method in which they were recovered from various accused individuals were consistent.
a misunderstanding of the evidence and a disregard for it by lower courts
Furthermore, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that both the Trial Court and the High Court had failed to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the evidence. They had accepted eyewitness accounts without addressing the anomalies or procedural irregularities that had been brought to their attention, and they had dismissed blatant discrepancies.
It was highlighted by the Court that a criminal conviction must be based on evidence that demonstrates guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, which is a criterion that was not fulfilled in this particular dispute.
In accordance with Article 136, the scope of appellate review
The explanation of the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 136 is included in this judgment, which is an essential component of the decision. When two lower courts have presented conclusions that are in agreement with one another, the Supreme Court will typically refrain from reevaluating the material.
The fact that such restraint is not absolute was, however, acknowledged by the document. Intervention is not only permissible but also required in situations where there is a clear violation of the law, a misunderstanding of the facts, or a problem with the administration of justice.
The Court reaffirmed that interference is permissible in situations where the findings are erroneous, not supported by facts, or based on a faulty judicial procedure. It did so by citing key judgments such as Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab. A court correction was necessary in this instance because of the incorrect interpretation of the most important testimonies and the disregard for procedural fairness.
Constitutional Principles and the Right to a just trial
Furthermore, the verdict maintains the fundamental rights of the accused, which are guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. These articles give protection against arbitrary conviction and ensure that fair trial procedures are followed. The Court underlined that justice cannot be accomplished by sacrificing the due process by asking that procedural rules be adhered to and that evidence be scrutinized in a rigorous manner.
In the case of Agniraj & Ors. v. State, the Supreme Court made a ruling that highlights the delicate balance that exists between the duty to prevent a miscarriage of justice and the obligation to show respect for the decisions of subordinate courts. This case indicates that when justice is at issue, the highest court in the land will not hesitate to re-evaluate evidence and intervene decisively, despite the fact that Article 136 stipulates that one should only utilize the power in a limited capacity.
During the process of acquitting the appellants, the Court highlighted that convictions cannot be based on inaccurate forensic evidence, shaky witness testimony, or procedural shortcuts. In doing so, it serves as a reminder that the integrity of the criminal justice system is dependent on establishing guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt and adhering to the values of fairness, transparency, and legal accountability.
