Supreme Court Reinforces Caution with 'Interested Witness' Testimonies

The Supreme Court emphasized that testimonies from interested witnesses cannot be dismissed outright but require careful scrutiny. A man convicted of murder based solely on the victim's father's testimony was acquitted as the evidence was deemed inconsistent. The 2019 high court verdict was overturned, setting him free.

The Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of treating testimonies from interested witnesses with a heightened sense of caution and scrutiny. On Friday, the apex court acquitted a man, previously convicted in a 2015 murder case, overruling the verdict of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.

The bench, comprised of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan, noted that the man's conviction was largely based on the testimony of the deceased's father. The high court had previously found this evidence unreliable for two other co-accused, who were acquitted, but still convicted the appellant on the same grounds.

Reversing this decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that while it's permissible to convict someone based on the sole testimony of a witness, the evidence in the current case was not sufficiently robust. Consequently, the appellant has been acquitted, and the apex court ordered his release, overturning the high court's 2019 judgment.

(With inputs from agencies.)