2026 INSC 486

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 1 of 27

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______ OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.13614 OF 2025)

TALARI NARESH …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal by the appellant -convict is

directed against judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 of

the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, in

Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2017. Thereby, the High Court

confirmed the conviction and sentence against the appellant

recorded by learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of

Offences Under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 2 of 27

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar in SC/ST S.C. No.51 of 2014 and held

the appellant guilty of commission of offences under

Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

1 and

under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes

and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989

2.

2.1. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and

was further required to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in respect

of his conviction for the offence under Section 302, IPC. For

the offence under Section 323, IPC, the appellant was

sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. For the

offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the appellant

came to be sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

5000/- with default stipulation to undergo three months

simple imprisonment. In respect of the offence under

Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, he was further sentenced to

imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-

and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further one-

1

Hereinafter, “IPC”.

2

Hereinafter, “SC/ST Act”.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 3 of 27

month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed

to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case was inter alia that on

12.05.2013 at around 8:30 in the morning, the deceased

named Shiva Shankar, along with his friend Narendar-PW3

was passing nearby the house of the appellant. Noticing

them, the appellant questioned about Shiva Shankar’s

returning to the village. It was stated that earlier on

14.02.2013, deceased Shiva Shankar had eloped with

appellant’s younger sister aged 18 years. They both,

however, returned to the village on the very next day. It was

stated that in view of the said incident of elopement, a

Panchayat was held in the village and that it was decided in

the Panchayat that deceased Shiva Shankar would go out of

the village Ogipur, and the girl would stay at her parental

house. In that view, Shiva Shankar went to stay at Ekmai

Village of Basheerabad Mandal to start living with his

maternal uncles-PW2 and another.

3.1. It was the further prosecution case that despite the

aforesaid decision of the Panchayat, the deceased came back

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 4 of 27

to village Ogipur to attend the wedding of his friend and

when he was passing near the house of the appellant on the

day of the incident, the appellant confronted him. It was

stated that a quarrel took place between the appellant and

the said Shiva Shankar, in a heat of temper. The appellant

took a shabad stone sized 6 inches in length, 4 inches in

width and 3 inches thick , and started beating Shiva

Shankar with the said stone.

3.1.1. It is the prosecution case that Narendar-PW3 who

had been accompanying Shiva Shankar went to the place of

mother of the deceased named Padmamma -PWl to inform

her. Padmamma-PWl, having come to know about the

incident, rushed to the scene of the offence. It was claimed

that when she intervened, she also suffered injuries below

her left eye. It was further stated that in course of these

happenings, PW1 was abused by the appellant with a

casteist slur.

3.1.2. PW1 took her son-injured Shiva Shankar to the

Government Hospital, Tandur, where the injured was given

first aid, thereafter, was advised to go to the General

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 5 of 27

Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment. When Shiva

Shankar was being shifted to the Hyderabad Hospital, he

died on the way succumbing to his injuries.

3.1.3. The appellant as well as the deceased belonged to the

same village Ogipur of Ranga Reddy District. The appellant

was a member of the backward class community known as

‘Mudiraj’, whereas the deceased came from the Scheduled

Caste Community ‘Mala’.

3.1.4. The incident came to knowledge of the Sub Inspector

of Police, Mr. P.S. Karankote-PW8. PW8 visited the

Government Hospital to inquire, recorded the statement of

PW1 and registered a case as Crime No.79 of 2013 in respect

of the offence under Section 324, IPC and Section 3(l)(x) of

the SC/ST Act. In view of the death of Shiva Shankar, the

offences under Sections 302, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST Act were added.

3.2. The prosecution, seeking to prove its case examined

in all eleven witnesses, in addition to relying on certain

documentary evidence. The oral evidence was led by the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 6 of 27

prosecution through Padmamma -PW1 who was the mother

of the deceased, Maruthi-PW2-the younger brother of PW1

and also one Narendar-PW3 who was claimed to have gone

to PW1 to inform her when the incident occurred. PW3 was

declared hostile. Tammanna-PW4 and Narsimha Reddy -

PW5 were examined who too turned hostile. Ashappa-PW6

was a Panch witness examined who had signed the

Panchanama-Ex. P5 along with one Mallappa, who did not

enter the box. Inquest Panchanama-Ex. P7 was prepared

and signed by PW6 along with said Malappa.

3.2.1. Dr. Sridhar-PW7 was the Medical Officer. He

conducted the postmortem examination and signed the

Postmortem Report-Ex. P8. Mr. Pavan Kumar-PW8, Sub

Inspector of Police was examined who upon receipt of

information on the date of incident from Government

Hospital, went there and recorded the statement of PW1. K.

Anantha Reddy-PW9, was working as Tahsildar at the

relevant time and who issued caste certificates of the

complainant, deceased and the accused was examined.

Further examined was one Shaik Ismail-PW11 in his

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 7 of 27

capacity as Assistant Commissioner of Police as he took up

further investigation. G. Udaya Kumar-PW10, police officer

who investigated the offence and visited the scene of offence

on the next day i.e., 13.05.2013 was examined.

3.2.2. Panchanama at Ex. P5 and rough sketch at Ex. P6

were produced. The FSL Report-Ex. P16 suggested that on

the stone (Item No. 1) and on the cotton shirt (Item No. 3),

the human blood was found. The Wound Certificate was

added at Ex. P15. The Postmortem Examination Report was

at Ex. P8.

3.3. The Trial Court considering the aforementioned

evidence proceeded to convict the appellant. In recording

guilt and consequential conviction, the Trial Court attached

weight to the evidence of Padmamma -PW1-mother of the

deceased and Narendar-PW3 who were the two projected as

eyewitnesses to the incident. The Trial Court observed that

PW1 had rushed to the place of offence and tried to rescue

the deceased and at that time the accused also beat her on

the left eye and abused her and mud-slanged about her

caste. According to the Trial Court, immediately after the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 8 of 27

incident, PW1 informed her brothers Maruthi-PW2 and

Venkataiah-LW3 telephonically. The Trial Court noticed

from the prosecution story that the crime took place in the

backdrop of the accused having eloped some time back with

the sister of the appellant , and the dispute was

subsequently settled by the Panchayat asking the deceased

to keep himself away from the village.

3.3.1. In the view of the Trial Court, the evidence of PW2,

who is the brother of PW1, was stood fully corroborated with

the evidence of PW1 with regard to the fact stated by PW1

about the incident and in respect of the injuries sustained

by the deceased. A view was taken also that recovery of the

stone from the scene of offence supported the version of PW1

about the occurrence and further that the FSL Report-Ex.

P16 showed the blood group tallying with the blood detected

on the clothes of the deceased.

4. Heard learned counsel Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy

assisted by learned advocate-on-record Mrs. D. Bharathi

Reddy and other learned advocates for the appellant, as well

as learned counsel Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw with learned

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 9 of 27

advocate-on-record Mr. Devina Sehgal and other advocates

for the respondent, at length.

5. Surveying the evidence briefly, both oral and

documentary mentioned above, which is appreciated by the

Trial Court and considered by the High Court in arriving at

the finding of guilt against the appellant, would be useful in

judging the merits of such conclusion. Padmamma-PW1 and

Narendar-PW3 were shown as eyewitnesses who were stated

to have witnessed the incident. The narrated story was that

PW3 was a person who accompanied deceased Shiva

Shankar while passing nearby the house of the appellant on

the day of incident in the morning. According to PW1, she

came to know about the incident from PW3 who stated to

have rushed to PW1’s place to inform her when the appellant

was allegedly beating the deceased.

5.1. PW1 deposed that she and PW3 both rushed to the

place and at that time found that the deceased was being

beaten by the appellant with a stone. PW1 further testified

that her son had taken away the sister of the accused three

months ago and the said event was the root cause for the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 10 of 27

incident. As per the evidence of PW1, at that time a

Panchayat was held in the village which considered the

issue of elopement of the sister of the accused and the

deceased.

5.1.1. The prosecution case hinged on the story told in their

evidence by PW1 and PW3. However, PW3 was declared to

be hostile since he resiled from the story and did not support

the prosecution. While PW1 stated that PW3 informed her

about the incident and the two had gone to the place of

offence, the hostile PW3 deposed that the deceased asked

him to go away and thereupon he returned to his house at

Ogipur village and that he never went to the house of PW1.

In his cross examination, PW3 stated that his statement

recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC-Ex. P2 was false and was

made at the instance of the accused. He mentioned that the

place of offence was the main road where there were

movement of people and the quarry trucks/lorries almost

twenty-four hours.

5.1.2. Maruthi-PW2, younger brother of PW1 deposed that

he received telephonic instructions from PW1 about the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 11 of 27

incident of beating of deceased by the accused and further

that he and one Venkataiah went to the Government

Hospital where the injured was shifted. PW2 also spoke on

the lines of PW1, about the incident of elopement of the

sister of the accused with the deceased and about the

Panchayat having been held which decided to require the

girl to be sent to her parents’ house and the accused to leave

the Ogipur village.

5.1.3. The other witnesses included Tammanna-PW4 and

Narsimha Reddy-PW5. While they both stated that they

knew the accused and his sister Sivamala, both became

hostile witnesses. Each of the two stated that none of them

had conducted any Panchayat regarding the issue of

elopement of Sivamala and the deceased. Ashappa-PW6

and one Mallappa were the two Panchas who signed

Panchanama-Ex. P5. According to PW6, a stone was found

at the scene of offence which was seized. Inquest

Panchanama-Ex. P7 was also signed by PW6 and said

Mallappa, PW6 stated that the place of offence was the main

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 12 of 27

road, a place where the quarries were situated at some

distance and there was movement of vehicles.

5.1.4. The medical evidence consisted of testimony of Dr.

Sridhar-PW7 who conducted postmortem on 13.05.2015

and issued the Postmortem Report. The evidence of PW7 and

details mentioned in the Postmortem Report-Ex. P8 as well

as injuries described are mentioned in detail in the

succeeding discussion.

5.1.5. Mr. Pavan Kumar-PW8 was the Sub Inspector of

Police who upon receiving the information about the

incident on 12.05.2013, went to the Government Hospital,

recorded the statement of PW1 and registered FIR. K.

Anantha Reddy-PW9, working as Tahsildar at the relevant

time, issued caste certificates. Further investigation was

taken up by one Shaik Ismail-PW11 who referred to the FSL

Report-Ex. P16 to suggest that on the stone and on the

cotton shirt, the human blood was found. G. Udaya Kumar-

PW10, the police officer who investigated the offence and

visited the scene of offence on the next day that is, on

13.05.2013 stated that Ashappa and Mallappa were called

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 13 of 27

for the purpose of preparing the Panchanama, who drew

rough sketch. The stone was recovered. From the caste

certificates received, the name of community of the

complainant, deceased and the accused was revealed.

5.2. Before proceeding to consider the import and effect of

the oral evidence led in support of the prosecution case, the

medical evidence may be referred to for its relevance. PW7

mentioned external antemortem injuries to be of the kind

and nature thus, (i) Contusion over left temporal region of

skull of size 2 x 1 cm with fracture of temporal bone. (ii) Left

black eye present. (iii) Laceration over chin of size 2 x 1 x 0.5

cms. (iv) Contusion over right side of forehead size 1 x 0.5

cms. (v) Contusion over right forearm of size of 3 x 2 cms

fracture upper end radius. (vi) Contusion over chest wall of

size 2 x 1 cms. (vii) Laceration of size 3 x 2 x 0.5 cms over

right great toe with fracture metatarsal. (viii) Laceration of

size of 3 x 1 x 1 cms over right lower end of radius fracture.

5.2.1. The Postmortem Report-Ex. P8 dated 14.05.2013

prepared by Dr. Sridhar-PW7 mentioned that the deceased

died on account of “massive intracranial haemorrhage

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 14 of 27

secondary to head injury leading to cardiorespiratory

arrest”.

5.2.2. There were noticeable discrepancies and

mismatching details in the Inquest Report-Ex. P6, in the

Postmortem Examination Report-Ex. P8 and in the evidence

of PW7 in that regard, which have remained non -

explanatory. While in the Inquest Report-Ex. P7, it was

mentioned that a postmortem examination was concluded

at 02.30 pm on 13.05.2013. In the Postmortem

Examination-Ex. P8, it was stated that the postmortem was

concluded on 14.05.2013 at 4.00 pm. This was an evident

inconsistency in the indication of time in the conclusion of

the postmortem examination.

5.2.3. The opinion given as to the cause of death was that

it was 12 to 24 hours prior to the time of conducting the

autopsy. If the date of 14.05.2013 is to be believed, then it

does not correlate with the time of death which was

indicated to be 12 to 24 hours before the time of autopsy.

The doctor-PW7 who conducted postmortem examination

has not been able to explain satisfactorily these

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 15 of 27

discrepancies found in Ex. P7 and Ex. P8 regarding the date

of conducting of postmortem examination and the time of

death. The answer given by PW7 in this regard was only that

he erred in showing the date to be 14.05.2013 due to night

duty as it was 24 hours long duty. This explanation hardly

inspired credibility. A doctor conducting the postmortem

examination cannot be believed to have skipped accuracy on

such counts.

6. The proposition is settled that the postmortem report

by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence.

It needs to be corroborated by other oral evidence. In

Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey

and Others

3

, the above position regarding the evidentiary

value of the postmortem report was stated,

‘...The post-mortem report of the doctor is his

previous statement based on his examination of the

dead body. It is not substantive evidence. The

doctor's statement in court is alone the substantive

evidence. The post-mortem report can be used only

to corroborate his statement under Section 157, or

to refresh his memory under Section 159, or to

contradict his statement in the witness box under

Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. A medical

witness called in as an expert to assist the court is

3

(2022) 12 SCC 657

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 16 of 27

not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the

medical officer is really of an advisory character

given on the basis of the symptoms found on

examination. The expert witness is expected to put

before the court all materials inclusive of the data

which induced him to come to the conclusion and

enlighten the court on the technical aspect of the

case by explaining the terms of science so that the

court although, not an expert may form its own

judgment on those material...’ (Para 31)

6.1. Since in absence of corroboration the postmortem

report is not a substantive piece of evidence, the testimony

of medical expert assumes importance in establishing the

facts mentioned in the postmortem report. As stated above,

Dr. Sridhar-PW7 was not in a position to offer satisfactory

and acceptable explanation regarding the discrepancies and

contradictions found in the Postmortem Examination

Report-Ex. P8. When on one hand the Postmortem

Examination Report-Ex. P8 was irreconcilable in terms of

the details and dates mentioned therein which could not be

sufficiently explained by the doctor, and on the other hand

the Wound Certificate-Ex. P15 did not bear any date, the

evidentiary value of this set of medical evidence stands

diminished to nil.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 17 of 27

7. While the medical evidence in the backdrop, operated

as per the above details, the conspectus of oral evidence,

when analysed, was found to be containing major

discrediting aspects for the prosecution. Recollecting at this

stage the primary story set up by the prosecution, the

version was that the deceased had earlier eloped with the

sister of the appellant, and the issue had been taken up by

the Panchayat stated to have been then held, wherein it was

decided that the deceased would leave the village and the

girl was sent back to parent’s house. The deceased returned

to the village to attend the marriage of a friend and when

passing by the house of the appellant along with PW3 in the

morning, the altercation occurred and the deceased Shiva

Shankar was done to death by the appellant. Padmamma -

PW1-mother of the deceased, according to the story, rushed

to the scene of the incident upon being informed by PW3,

where she was also abused in terms of her caste and it was

further claimed that she also suffered some injuries below

the eye.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 18 of 27

7.1. Furthermore, it comes in the evidence of G. Udaya

Kumar-PW10, the investigating police officer and Ashappa-

PW6 who was a Panch witness as well as Narendar-PW3 who

testified that the scene of offence was the main road, it was

a place where quarries were located nearby and further that

there was a vehicular traffic as trucks and lorries were used

to pass day and night. It is only reasonable to believe that

since the scene of offence was a public place on the main

road humming with traffic, there would have been persons

who had witnessed the incident. The prosecution however

did not examine anybody from the nearby. This aspect gains

significance, when as per the total oral evidence analysed

herein, the very occurrence of the incident has slipped into

a doubtful story.

7.2. The event of elopement of the sister of the appellant

and the post-holding of Panchayat in the village etc. was

shown to be the genesis to the incident. The material parts

of the version of the prosecution evidence have destroyed the

prosecution story on this score. First is the aspect of

Narendar-PW3 going to the house of the mother of the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 19 of 27

deceased-PW1 to inform her about the incident and PW1

thereupon going to the scene of the incident and second, the

factum that the Panchayat was held. The prosecution case

about Narendar-PW3 going to inform PW1–mother of the

deceased fell flat. PW3 turned hostile and testified in terms

that the deceased asked him to go away, whereupon he

returned to his house at Ogipur and never went to the house

of PW1. Thus, what was depo sed by PW3 in terms

contradicted the statement of PW1. When PW3 was asked

that he had stated about going to the house of PW1 to inform

her in his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC-Ex. P2, PW3

stated that it was a false statement made at the instance of

the accused.

7.3. Whereas PW1 asserted the said twin aspects

Tammanna-PW4 and Narsimha Reddy -PW5 who both

separately stated that none of them conducted any

Panchayat about the issue of elopement of the sister of the

accused Sivamala and the deceased. There is no other

evidence which could corroborate the factum of holding of

Panchayat etc.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 20 of 27

7.4. The contention on behalf of the appellant that the

mother of the deceased Padmamma-PW1 was an interested

witness and that her evidence has to be seen as doubtful

could not be brushed aside lightly when evaluated in light

of the aforementioned contradictions disproving her deposed

narratives.

7.5. It is true that the court is not expected to

mechanically reject the evidence of a witness on the ground

that the witness is a partisan witness or relative. This Court

in Masalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

4

, speaking through a

five judge bench, put a note of caution in appreciating the

evidence given by an interested witness,

7.6. The following observations could be applied in the

present case,

‘… There is no doubt that when a criminal court has

to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are

partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in

weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are

discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the

evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or

not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable,

are all matters which must be taken into account...’

(Para-14)

4

[1964] 8 SCR 133

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 21 of 27

8. In Bhaskarrao and Others vs. State of

Maharashtra

5

, this Court highlighted that a witness who

has a strong interest in the result should not be allowed to

be weighed on the same scales with those who do not have

such interest in the outcome. Treating these two categories

at par, stated the court, would open the doors for the court

to arrive at a perverted or distorted truth. It was observed,

‘…This sound rule which remains the bulwark of

this system, and which determines the value of

evidence derived from such sources, needs to be

cautiously and carefully observed and enforced.

There is no dispute about the fact that the interest

of the witness must affect his testimony is a

universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of

bias, a man may not be in a position to judge

correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so.

Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide

evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves

his interest. Under such influences, man will, even

though not consciously, suppress some facts,

soften or modify others, and provide favourable

colour…’ (Para-36)

8.1. This Court opined that the above are the controlling

considerations for assessing the credibility of human

testimony, and the same should not be overlooked while

5

(2018) 6 SCC 591

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 22 of 27

applying the rules of evidence and while determining its

weight.

8.2. Such an approach while evaluating the evidence of a

related or interested witness calls for extra caution when the

evidence of such witness suffers from contradictions and

discrepancies, for, knowingly or unknowingly a departure

from telling the truth by a witness belonging to such

category naturally leads to give rise to inconsistencies. The

discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a

related or interested witness will have to be viewed in such

context, and more particularly when other evidence on

record sufficiently demolishes the evidence of the related or

interested witness, its evidence would entirely lose its

reliability to stand in support of the prosecution.

8.3. The law as to how to appreciate and apply the

evidence of a hostile witness is also not far away to search.

In Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh

6

, this court observed,

6

(1991) 3 SCC 627

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 23 of 27

‘…the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be

rejected in toto merely because the prosecution

chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined

him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be

treated as effaced or washed off the record

altogether but the same can be accepted to the

extent their version is found to be dependable on a

careful scrutiny thereof.’ (Para 6)

8.4. In Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of

Gujarat

7

, this Court reiterated that the testimony of a

hostile witness is useful to the extent which it supports the

prosecution case. In Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana

8

also this Court held that when a witness is declared hostile

and is cross examined with the permission of the court, his

evidence remains admissible and there is no legal bar to

arrive at a finding of conviction on the basis of the testimony

of such hostile witness, if corroborated by other reliable

evidence.

8.4.1. This Court in Himanshu alias Chintu vs. State

(NCT of Delhi)

9

after referring to the law on the evidence of

the hostile witness as above underlined as under,

7

(1999) 8 SCC 624

8

(1976) 1 SCC 389

9

(2011) 2 SCC 36

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 24 of 27

‘The aforesaid legal position leaves no manner of

doubt that the evidence of a hostile witness remains

admissible evidence, and it is open to the court to

rely upon the dependable part of that evidence

which is found to be acceptable and duly

corroborated by some other reliable evidence

available on record…’ (Para-31)

8.4.2. Thus, the evidence of the hostile witness is

admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other

evidence. In Khujji (supra) and in Koli Lakhmanbhai

Chanabhai (supra), it was held that it is open to the court

to have a conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness.

9. Therefore, when the testimony of a hostile witness is

admissible subject to be feeded by corroboration and the

conviction on that basis could be arrived at, the reverse is

also true as a canon of appreciation of evidence. What

necessarily implies is that as the evidence of a hostile

witness can be used for convicting the accused, such

evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the

purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified by

the hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the

other evidence on record, either ocular or documentary. The

dictum would be that the testimony of a hostile witness or

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 25 of 27

statement in the deposition of hostile witness could be

properly employed to discredit the prosecution case and a

conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it

and could be founded therein.

10. Reverting back to the facts and the kind of evidence

led by the prosecution, the interaction of evidence of PW1

and PW3 read with the evidence of PW4 and PW5,

demolished the very fulcrum of the prosecution case, in as

much as the very occurrence of the incident was discredited

and became liable to be disbelieved, cementing doubts

further by the fact that though the incident was claimed to

have occurred in the open place humming with vehicular

traffic, no person from the nearby was examined as a

witness to support and establish the incident. Thus, the

occurrence of incident itself could not be said to have been

proved by the prosecution. The genesis of the incident and

the motive of the crime were also not proved as the

prosecution evidence could not establish the story of holding

of Panchayat pursuant to the elopement of the sister of the

accused and the deceased.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 26 of 27

10.1. Injuries in the postmortem report became doubtful,

for the Postmortem Report-Ex. P8 itself in its veracity stood

strewn with discrepancies, contradictions and irreconcilable

facts which the medical person in charge-PW7 could not

explain. The Investigating Officer admitted that he visited

the crime scene only on the next day, thus, the crime scene

was not protected.

10.2. In wake of such weak, contradictory and crumbling

evidence, where the prosecution miserably struggled to be

finally unable to prove its case, the conviction recorded by

the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is not

sustainable. Both the courts committed a concurrent error

in convicting the appellant. The judgment and order of the

trial court and the High Court deserve to be set at naught.

10.3. As a result, judgment and order dated 04.02.2025

passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana,

Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2017 confirming

the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Special

Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District and

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13614 of 2025 Page 27 of 27

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in SC/ST S.C. No.51

of 2014 holding the appellant guilty of offences charged

against him under the IPC and under the SC/ST Act, 1989,

is hereby set aside.

10.4. The appellant is acquitted and shall be set at liberty

forthwith unless required to be detained in respect of any

other offence.

11. The Appeal stands allowed.

Any interlocutory application, as may be pending,

shall not survive.

..……..………………………….. ,J.

[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]

…………………………………..,J.

[N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 13, 2026.