High Court acquitted 3 murder convicts. Supreme Court: 'You got it wrong'

Three men were convicted for hacking a political rival to death. The High Court set them free. The Supreme Court just reversed that—and here's why.

It was 8:30 PM on 18 January 2007 in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. A Sumo vehicle carrying Rajasekhar Reddy, his brother Nageswara Reddy, and their supporters was ambushed by men with hunting sickles. The sound of sickles clanging against the metal of the Sumo broke the evening quiet. Three of them—the main accused—dragged Rajasekhar Reddy out of the vehicle and hacked him to death on the road, blood pooling on the tarmac. Others smashed the vehicle's windows, injuring the driver and another passenger. The attack, the prosecution said, was rooted in political rivalry and past enmity.

The question that landed before the Supreme Court was this: Could a High Court overturn a murder conviction by giving excessive weight to minor contradictions, discarding the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, and applying the same reasoning to attackers who played very different roles?

When the trial court convicted three

The Sessions Court in Kurnool examined the evidence against eleven accused persons. It convicted three—Accused 1, 2, and 3—under Sections 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining eight accused—Accused 4 through 11—were acquitted. The three convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The trial court found that the eyewitnesses, including the brother of the deceased and other supporters who were present in the vehicle, had given consistent accounts of the attack. The injured witnesses had specifically identified the three main assailants and described the overt acts—the dragging, the hacking with sickles—that each performed. The trial court noted that the witnesses were present at the scene, had seen the attack unfold, and had no reason to falsely implicate the three accused while letting the real killers go. Their testimony, the trial court found, was credible and unshaken in cross-examination.

The court also considered the medical evidence—the post-mortem report that showed multiple hacking wounds consistent with the use of hunting sickles—and the recovery of the weapons. The three accused were specifically linked to the murder weapon. The trial court, after weighing all this evidence, concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused 1, 2, and 3.

How the High Court set them free

On 21 February 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad reversed the convictions of all three accused. It found several problems: the FIR (the written complaint that starts a police investigation) was allegedly delayed by seven hours; there were contradictions in the testimony of witnesses; and the witnesses were relatives of the deceased, which the High Court felt made their evidence unreliable. The FIR document itself felt thin to the High Court—its timing and contents raised doubts about whether it had been genuinely recorded at the claimed hour.

The High Court also applied what is called "parity reasoning"—since the eight co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court, the High Court reasoned that the three main accused should also be acquitted. It did not adequately distinguish between the roles of those who merely broke windows and those who dragged a man out and killed him. The High Court treated all eleven accused as part of a single unlawful assembly and concluded that if eight could be acquitted, the remaining three should also benefit from the doubt.

The High Court gave undue weight to minor contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitnesses—small inconsistencies about the exact sequence of events or the precise number of attackers—that did not affect the core narrative. It also doubted the presence of the injured eyewitnesses at the scene, despite the fact that they had sustained injuries during the attack and their names appeared in the medical records.

Why the Supreme Court disagreed

The brother of the deceased and the State of Andhra Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution (the Supreme Court's special power to hear appeals against High Court judgments). A bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna heard the matter. The courtroom fell silent as the bench began reading its judgment.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning fundamentally flawed on several grounds.

First, the court held that merely because witnesses are relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on that ground. The court must evaluate the substance and consistency of their testimony. In this case, the witnesses were consistent on the core facts—who attacked, with what weapon, and what they did. The fact that they were related to the victim did not make them liars; indeed, relatives are often the most natural witnesses to a crime committed in their presence.

Second, the court said that unnecessary weight should not be given to minor contradictions in witness testimony. Only material contradictions—those that affect the prosecution case as a whole—can warrant disbelief of witnesses. The High Court had given undue importance to small inconsistencies that did not undermine the basic narrative. The Supreme Court noted that no two witnesses see an event in exactly the same way, and minor variations are a sign of independent recall, not fabrication.

Third, the court emphasised that "the deposition of an injured eyewitness has greater reliability and credibility" and that "the presence of such a witness at the scene ought not to be doubted." In this case, there were injured eyewitnesses who had specifically identified the three main accused. Their testimony carried the weight of their own wounds—they were not mere spectators but victims of the same attack. The High Court had no sound reason to doubt their presence or their account.

Fourth, the court addressed the FIR delay. A delay of seven hours in lodging the FIR, where the FIR was sent to the Magistrate within 24 hours as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure (the law that governs how police investigations and trials happen), cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court had treated this delay as a major flaw, but the Supreme Court found it was not. The FIR was lodged on the same night, and the fact that it reached the Magistrate within the statutory period showed that there was no interpolation or manipulation.

Fifth, the court rejected the parity reasoning. The reasoning adopted for acquitting co-accused with different roles and overt acts cannot be automatically applied to main assailants who were identified by eyewitnesses with specific overt acts attributed to them. Breaking a window is not the same as hacking a man to death. The High Court erred in treating all accused alike when their roles were materially different.

The judgment that restored life sentences

On 7 March 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the brother of the deceased and the State. It quashed the High Court's judgment insofar as it acquitted Accused 1, 2, and 3. The trial court's conviction under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and the life imprisonment sentence were restored. The three accused were directed to surrender within four weeks. The order was read out in a quiet courtroom, the weight of the file—fifteen years of litigation—finally settled.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the remaining eight accused, leaving that part of the High Court's judgment undisturbed. The court found that the evidence against Accused 4 through 11 was not strong enough to warrant conviction, and their acquittal was therefore not interfered with.

The court's ratio—the binding legal principle—was clear: minor contradictions cannot override consistent testimony; injured eyewitnesses deserve special credibility; a seven-hour FIR delay is not fatal if the FIR reaches the Magistrate within 24 hours; and parity reasoning cannot be applied mechanically to accused with different roles. The High Court had erred on all four counts.

The procedural journey of this case had been long. The FIR was registered on the night of the attack itself—Crime No. 7/2007 at Kurnool Police Station. The chargesheet was filed against all eleven accused. The Magistrate Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, which convicted A1-A3 and acquitted A4-A11. The High Court reversed the convictions on 21 February 2018. The Supreme Court restored them on 7 March 2022—Criminal Appeal Nos. 72, 73 & 74 of 2022, reported as 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251.

The provisions engaged in this case included Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 302 (murder), 149 (unlawful assembly), 324 (hurt by dangerous weapons), 326 (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), and 427 (mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 313 CrPC (examination of accused) and Article 136 of the Constitution (special leave to appeal). The court applied Sections 148 and 302 IPC to convict the three main accused, while leaving the other provisions undisturbed as they related to the acquitted co-accused.

THE PLAY: When defending a conviction on appeal, never let the High Court treat minor contradictions as fatal—insist that only material contradictions that affect the core of the prosecution case can justify acquittal, especially when injured eyewitnesses have given consistent accounts.

The three men who were set free in 2018 are now back in prison, serving life sentences for a killing that happened on a January evening in Kurnool, fifteen years ago. The sound of sickles on metal, the blood on the road, the silence in the courtroom when the judgment was read—all of it now belongs to a case that reaffirmed how appellate courts must evaluate evidence: with substance, not superficiality.