Terming "teaching" of witnesses in a criminal case inside a police station as "shocking", the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu police chief to conduct an enquiry and initiate action against the erring officials.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, which set aside the order of conviction and life sentence to two accused in a murder case, said it is surprising that both the trial court and the high court overlooked the critical aspect of tutoring of the witnesses in the case.
"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. All of them were interested witnesses.
"Their evidence will have to be discarded as 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," the bench said in an order.
It added police cannot be allowed to tutor prosecution witnesses as it amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery.
"The director general of police of the state of Tamil Nadu shall cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officials of tutoring PW-1 to PW-5 (prosecution witnesses) at the concerned police station. Needless to add, appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring officials in accordance with the law," the bench ordered.
It added the conduct of police officials became more serious as other eyewitnesses in the case, though available, were withheld.
"We are surprised that both the courts overlooked this critical aspect. It is pertinent to note 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," it noted.
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.
"Therefore, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. Hence, there is a serious doubt created about the genuineness of the prosecution case. The benefit of this substantial doubt must be given to the appellants," it said.
The bench noted that before the appellants were enlarged on bail by the top court, they had undergone incarceration for more than 10 years.
The two accused, Manikandan and Sivakumar, were alleged to have 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.
