CASE NAME	Subhash Krishnan v. State of Goa, (2012) 8 SCC 365
CITATION	AIR 2012 SC( CRI) 1564, 2012 (6) AIR BOM R 170, (2013) 2 REC CRIR 119, (2012) 4 RAJ LW 2953, (2013) 1 ALD(CRL) 283
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
APPELLANT	Subhash Krishnan
RESPONDENT	State of Goa
DECIDED ON	17th August 2012

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India decided the case involving the appellant, Subhash Krishnan, who was found guilty along with others of kidnapping and killing a man named Shanu in Goa, in a ruling dated August 17, 2012. According to the prosecution’s argument, on October 10, 2003, Shanu was seized without his will by a gang that included the appellant. He was then beaten and discovered dead under strange circumstances. The appellant was convicted after the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision to exonerate him of charges under Sections 342 and 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Examining the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and the appellant’s identification during a Test Identification Parade (TIP), the Supreme Court deliberated on the legality of the High Court’s overturning of the trial court’s acquittal. The Court carefully examined whether the identification was trustworthy and whether the TIP’s procedural elements were carried out correctly. In light of the appellant’s activities, the Court also evaluated the application of Sections 342 (wrongful imprisonment) and 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) of the IPC. 

This case emphasizes how the judge must carefully consider the evidence and the proper procedure, particularly when reversing acquittals, to make sure that convictions are supported by strong and trustworthy evidence and maintain the values of justice.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Subhash Krishnan was one of the defendants in the case resolved on August 17, 2012, for the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Shanu, which took place in Goa on October 10, 2003. The prosecution claims that a group of people, including the appellant, forcibly removed Shanu from his home before discovering him dead. Witnesses described a sequence of events that culminated in the crime, including assault, unjust incarceration, and a plot to assassinate Shanu. To prove the appellant’s involvement, the prosecution mainly relied on eyewitness reports and a Test Identification Parade (TIP). According to Shanu’s relatives’ testimony, on the day of the occurrence, the accused had seized Shanu against his will. When Shanu’s body was later found, questions were raised about the accused’s involvement in his demise.

After considering the evidence, the trial judge found that there was not enough evidence to prove Subhash Krishnan’s involvement and cleared him of charges under Sections 342 and 364, read with Section 34 of the IPC. On appeal, the High Court, however, overturned this acquittal and found the appellant guilty. The High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was heavily involved in the kidnapping and murder based on the testimonies, TIP, and circumstantial evidence. After that, the Supreme Court heard the case. The Court carefully considered the evidence, paying special attention to the TIP’s procedural accuracy and the validity of witness statements. It also looked at whether the High Court’s decision to reverse the lower court’s acquittal was a proper application of the law.

The appellant argued that the evidence did not prove his involvement in the crime and that the TIP’s identification method was defective. He maintained that the absence of concrete and direct evidence made the reversal of the acquittal unwarranted. The case made clear how crucial it is to follow the correct procedures and carefully consider the evidence, particularly when overturning an acquittal. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s decision to convict the appellant was supported by due process and natural justice principles, as well as whether it was founded on adequate grounds.

ISSUES RAISED

• Given the evidence and the case’s procedural elements, especially the Test Identification Parade (TIP), was the High Court’s right to reverse the lower court’s acquittal?
• Did the prosecution present enough credible evidence, such as eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence, to prove Subhash Krishnan’s role in Shanu’s kidnapping and murder?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments from appellant

• The High Court acquitted the appellant of a murder case, citing a lack of evidence and a lack of cross-examination by PW-2. The medical evidence showed no cut injury on the deceased’s body, indicating the appellant had no involvement. The appellant’s case should have been compared to those of A-5 and A-6, and he should have been acquitted. 
• The test identification parade was not held immediately after the occurrence, and the eye witnesses’ identification was not reliable. The eye witnesses’ statements were improved compared to those found in Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the presence of the appellant and his involvement in the crime was not made out.

Arguments from respondent

• The Test Identification Parade (TIP) was legal, and PW-30 addressed the appellant’s shirt change concerns. The appellant’s objection was properly set right, validating the method.
  PW-14 and PW-33, who participated in the TIP, identified the appellant despite not knowing his identity. PWs-16, 23, 26, 27, and 34 also recognized the appellant in court, confirming the identification.
• PW-35 said that they saw the assault from Marina store entrances, ensuring valid identification. PWs-14 and 33 also mentioned the appellant wearing a red shirt during the incident, as did other witnesses.
• According to PW-21, the Maruti van owner, the appellant, stole the vehicle, which was ultimately linked to the crime. When the accused asked where the dead were, PW-25, a garage worker, confirmed the appellant’s attendance.

JUDGMENT

The appellant’s attorney claimed that eyewitnesses couldn’t have seen the crime due to the 70-meter distance. The court rejected this argument, noting that the incident occurred in broad daylight at 4:30 p.m., making it likely that the witnesses saw it. The witnesses were able to identify the accused despite the distance because the assault involved numerous people and was public. The court rejected the notion that the crime’s 4-5-minute duration prevented witnesses from observing the participants. The post-mortem report considered the time to inflict 36 injuries sufficient for witnesses to identify the perpetrator.

When PW-23 claimed the appellant was hurt, the court remarked that this was unsubstantiated but did not affect the prosecution’s case. The court noted the consistency of additional witness statements, medical evidence, and forensic reports in proving the appellant’s guilt. Thus, the appeals were dismissed, and the lower court’s ruling was sustained, upholding the conviction.

CONCLUSION

This case rests on eyewitness evidence and whether they might have seen the crime from 70 meters away. The defense claimed that the witnesses could not have accurately identified the appellant and the other accused due to the distance. The defense also argued that the assault’s 4-5-minute duration made it difficult for witnesses to determine each participant’s role.

The court dismissed these claims, stating that the assault occurred at 4:30 p.m. during daylight hours, making it likely that the witnesses saw it. The fact that eight people used swords, knives, and dandas to abuse the victim in public meant that witnesses would have observed. Even though they were 70 meters away, the witnesses at Marina Stores’ entrance had a clear view of the occurrence. Under the circumstances, the court believed the witnesses could observe and identify the defendants, including the appellant.

The defense further argued that the witnesses could not have noted the accused’s participation in such a short period. The court found that the post-mortem report reported that the deceased was injured 36 times, which was enough time for bystanders to watch the crime and identify the perpetrators. The victim had many injuries, which took time, according to the medical report. This reinforced the claim that witnesses saw the defendants, including the appellant, sufficiently.

The court noted that PWs-14, 33, 16, 23, and others consistently identified the appellant in court and at the Test Identification Parade. The prosecution relied on these reliable identifications. PW-21, the owner of the Maruti van, testified that the appellant took the car, which was eventually linked to the crime. A garage worker, PW-25, verified the appellant’s attendance earlier in the day when the accused asked where the dead were.

PW-35 told the court that the witnesses saw the crime from the Marina Stores entrance. This testimony supported eyewitness accounts. The post-mortem analysis confirmed that the deceased’s injuries were consistent with the accused’s weapons, particularly the appellant’s talwar.

During the trial, PW-23 falsely claimed that the appellant had bled. The court acknowledged this contradiction but said it did not prejudice the prosecution. Other eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and forensic investigations supported the appellant’s guilt.

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the eyewitnesses could see the incident from 70 meters away. The Marina Stores entrance’s clear view and the assault’s duration allowed witnesses to identify the perpetrators. The court also decided that PW-23’s discrepancies did not weaken the evidence. Witnesses’ identification of the appellant, medical results, and forensic data backed the prosecution’s case. Thus, the court upheld the lower court’s judgment and the appellant’s conviction because the appeal was without merit.