Case Name: Renuka Prasad v. The State
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189–3190 of 2023 etc.
Date of Judgment: 09 May 2025
Quorum: Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sudhanshu Dhulia
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Renuka Prasad (A1) and his men were accused for killing a man who worked in his brother’s (PW4) school. Police said murder happened because of fight in family about property and schools. They said A1 hired killers A5 and A6 through a lawyer (A7). Victim was killed in front of his son (PW8) on 28 April 2011. PW8 gave FIS and said he saw everything.
Police called 87 witnesses but 71 changed their story in court – including PW8. Trial Court said no enough proof and acquitted everyone. But High Court said police version is strong and convicted A1 to A6. A7 was kept acquitted.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Can court believe only police and not normal witnesses?
- Can IO say what witness said earlier and court treat it as truth?
- If one accused tells about recovery, can it be used against others?
- Was High Court right in saying Trial Court wrong?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 161, 162 CrPC – Statement to police, how to use
- Section 27, 30, 25, 26 Evidence Act – Confession, when allowed
- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor
- Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
- Navjot Sandhu, Haricharan Kurmi
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
- Main eyewitness (PW8) didn’t say anything useful in court.
- Witnesses turned hostile – police only told court what they earlier said.
- Clothes and weapons recovered from someone not even involved in killing.
- No one identified accused in court or in test parade.
- Police just made a story. No solid proof shown in court.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
- Officers gave clear story, they are trained and honest.
- Many things like weapons, clothes, money recovered.
- Even if others turned hostile, police proof is enough.
- High Court was correct to trust the officers.
ANALYSIS
Supreme Court checked all points carefully:
- PW8 didn’t identify attackers. Said police told him who did it.
- Witnesses said something to police but changed story in court.
- Law says police can’t just tell what others said earlier – court must hear from witness directly.
- Clothes and weapons were recovered not from killers but from A3, who didn’t take part in murder. No proof that those things were used in crime.
- Police said A5 & A6 gave clothes to A3 – but no evidence shown.
- No proof that A1 owned the place from where weapons found.
- High Court believed police too much, ignored legal rules.
JUDGMENT
Supreme Court cancelled High Court order.
Brought back Trial Court acquittal.
All accused (A1 to A6) are now acquitted.
Told to release them unless they are in jail for another case.
If out on bail, bail bonds are cancelled.
CONCLUSION
This case teaches:
- Police work is important, but law needs witness to say in court.
- Section 161 statements are not real proof unless witness repeats in court.
- Confession to police only useful if it leads to discovery and is linked to crime.
- Motive, planning and action must be proved – not guessed.
- Courts must follow law, not only feelings or police version.
This was a sad case of murder. But law cannot punish without real proof. Judges said even if crime is horrible, guilt must be proven legally, not just morally.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.
