The Supreme Court held that conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution case is riddled with contradictions, hostile testimony demolishes the foundational narrative, medical evidence is unreliable, and the occurrence itself remains doubtful.
Facts
The appellant was convicted under ss. 302 and 323 IPC and ss. 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989 for allegedly murdering Shiva Shankar by assaulting him with a stone.
The prosecution case was that the deceased had earlier eloped with the appellant’s sister, following which a village Panchayat directed the deceased to leave the village. Subsequently, when the deceased returned to attend a friend’s wedding, the appellant allegedly attacked him near his house.
PW1, mother of the deceased, claimed that PW3 informed her about the assault and that upon reaching the scene she witnessed the appellant assaulting her son and also abusing her with casteist slurs. The deceased later succumbed to head injuries while being shifted to hospital.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues Framed
Whether the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt in light of contradictions in eyewitness testimony, hostile witnesses, and inconsistencies in medical evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Failure of eyewitness account
The Court found that the prosecution case fundamentally rested on PW1 and PW3 (Paras 5–5.1).
However, PW3 turned hostile and completely contradicted the prosecution narrative by stating that he never went to PW1’s house to inform her about the incident (Para 7.2).
This directly undermined PW1’s claim regarding how she reached the place of occurrence.
(b) Failure to prove motive and Panchayat story
The prosecution sought to establish motive through the alleged Panchayat convened after the deceased eloped with the appellant’s sister.
However, PW4 and PW5 categorically denied that any such Panchayat had taken place (Para 7.3).
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish both the genesis and motive of the alleged crime.
(c) Doubtful occurrence and absence of independent witnesses
The Court noted that the alleged occurrence took place on a busy public road with continuous vehicular movement and nearby quarry activity (Paras 7.1, 10).
Despite this, no independent witness from the locality was examined.
The Court held that failure to examine natural witnesses assumed significance because even the occurrence itself had become doubtful.
(d) Defective medical evidence
The Court extensively analysed discrepancies between the inquest report, postmortem report, and oral testimony of the doctor (Paras 5.2.2–6.1).
The Court found irreconcilable inconsistencies regarding:
(a) date and time of postmortem examination;
(b) time of death; and
(c) medical documentation.
The doctor’s explanation that the discrepancy occurred due to “24 hours long duty” was found unreliable (Para 5.2.3).
Relying on Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, the Court reiterated that a postmortem report is not substantive evidence unless corroborated by reliable testimony (Para 6).
The Court ultimately held that the evidentiary value of the medical evidence “stands diminished to nil” (Para 6.1).
(e) Use of hostile witness testimony
The Court discussed principles governing hostile witnesses by referring to Khujji, Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai, and Himanshu alias Chintu (Paras 8.3–9).
Importantly, the Court clarified that testimony of a hostile witness can not only support conviction where corroborated, but may also be relied upon to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal (Para 9).
(f) Failure of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt
The Court concluded that contradictions between PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 demolished the “very fulcrum of the prosecution case” (Para 10).
The Court held that both the Trial Court and High Court committed a “concurrent error” in sustaining conviction on such weak and contradictory evidence (Para 10.2).
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court.
The appellant was acquitted of all offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Key Takeaway
Regarding hostile witness testimony, the Court held:
“The testimony of a hostile witness… could indeed be applied and utilised also for the purpose of acquitting the accused.” (Para 9)
Ratio
Where hostile testimony, contradictions in eyewitness accounts, absence of independent witnesses, and unreliable medical evidence collectively undermine the prosecution story, conviction cannot be sustained as the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 486
Decided on: 13 May 2026
Case Title: Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria