TALARI NARESHversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

                 [2026] 6 S.C.R. 294 : 2026 INSC 486

                            Talari Naresh
                                   v.
                        The State of Telangana
                  (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2506 of 2026)
                                13 May 2026
           [Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       The present appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against
       judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 of the High Court. Thereby,
       the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the
       appellant and held the appellant guilty of commission of offences
       u/ss.302 and 323 of the IPC and u/ss.3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of
       SC/ST Act.

                                 Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 323 – Scheduled Castes and
       The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 –
       ss.3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) – On 14.02.2013, victim-deceased had
       eloped with appellant’s younger sister aged 18 years –
       A Panchayat was held in the village and that it was decided in
       the Panchayat that victim would go out of the village Ogipur,
       and the girl would stay at her parental house – The victim
       came back to attend the wedding of his friend – Appellant
       confronted him – Quarrel took place between them – In heat of
       temper, the appellant took a shabad stone and started hitting
       victim with it – PW-1-mother of victim tried to intervene, she
       also suffered injuries – Victim succumbed to injuries – The
       deceased came from the Scheduled Caste Community ‘Mala’ –
       FIR was registered u/s.302, IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
       Act – The Trial Court convicted the appellant – The High Court
       confirmed the conviction against the appellant – Correctness:
       Held: PW1 deposed that she and PW3 both rushed to the place
       and at that time found that the deceased was being beaten by
       the appellant with a stone – The prosecution case hinged on the
       story told in their evidence by PW1 and PW3 – However, PW3
       was declared to be hostile since he resiled from the story and
       did not support the prosecution – The other witnesses included
* Author
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                             295

                    Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


     PW4 and PW5, both turned hostile – Each of the two stated that
     none of them had conducted any Panchayat regarding the issue
     of elopement of accused’s sister and the deceased – There were
     noticeable discrepancies and mismatching details in the Inquest
     Report-Ex. P6, in the Postmortem Examination Report-Ex. P8
     and in the evidence of PW7 in that regard, which have remained
     non-explanatory – The opinion given as to the cause of death
     was that it was 12 to 24 hours prior to the time of conducting
     the autopsy – If the date of 14.05.2013 is to be believed, then it
     does not correlate with the time of death which was indicated to
     be 12 to 24 hours before the time of autopsy – The doctor-PW7
     who conducted postmortem examination has not been able to
     explain satisfactorily these discrepancies found – The interaction
     of evidence of PW1 and PW3 read with the evidence of PW4
     and PW5, demolished the very fulcrum of the prosecution case,
     in as much as the very occurrence of the incident was discredited
     and became liable to be disbelieved, cementing doubts further by
     the fact that though the incident was claimed to have occurred
     in the open place humming with vehicular traffic, no person from
     the nearby was examined as a witness to support and establish
     the incident – Thus, the occurrence of incident itself could not be
     said to have been proved by the prosecution – The genesis of the
     incident and the motive of the crime were also not proved as the
     prosecution evidence could not establish the story of holding of
     Panchayat pursuant to the elopement of the sister of the accused
     and the deceased – Thus, the appellant is acquitted. [Paras 5.1,
     5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 10, 10.4]

     Evidence – Interested witness – Evaluating the evidence of a
     related or interested witness calls for extra caution:
     Held: While evaluating the evidence of a related or interested
     witness calls for extra caution when the evidence of such witness
     suffers from contradictions and discrepancies, for, knowingly or
     unknowingly a departure from telling the truth by a witness belonging
     to such category naturally leads to give rise to inconsistencies –
     The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a related
     or interested witness will have to be viewed in such context,
     and more particularly when other evidence on record sufficiently
     demolishes the evidence of the related or interested witness, its
     evidence would entirely lose its reliability to stand in support of
     the prosecution. [Para 8.2]
296                                                             [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Evidence – Hostile witness – When admissible:
       Held: The evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it
       gets strengthened with the help of other evidence – In Khujji and
       in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai, it was held that it is open to the
       court to have a conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness –
       Therefore, when the testimony of a hostile witness is admissible
       subject to be feeded by corroboration and the conviction on that
       basis could be arrived at, the reverse is also true as a canon of
       appreciation of evidence – What necessarily implies is that as
       the evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting the
       accused, such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also
       for the purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified
       by the hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the other
       evidence on record, either ocular or documentary – The dictum
       would be that the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the
       deposition of hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit
       the prosecution case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be
       supported through it and could be founded therein. [Paras 8.4.2, 9]

                                Case Law Cited
       Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964] 8 SCR 133 – followed.
       Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1991] 3
       SCR 1 : (1991) 3 SCC 627; Himanshu alias Chintu v. State (NCT
       of Delhi) [2011] 1 SCR 48 : (2011) 2 SCC 36; Bhaskarrao and
       Others v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 4 SCR 751 : (2018) 6 SCC
       591; Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and
       Others [2022] 13 SCR 34 : (2022) 12 SCC 657; Koli Lakhmanbhai
       Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624; Bhagwan Singh v.
       State of Haryana [1976] 2 SCR 921 : (1976) 1 SCC 389 – relied on.

                                  List of Acts
       The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
       of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Murder; Evidence; Medical evidence; Prosecution evidence;
       Interested witness; Hostile witness; Discrepancies; Postmortem
       examination; Inquest report; Autopsy; Deposition of hostile witness;
       Motive of crime.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          297

                           Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


                                     Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       2506 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2025 of the High Court
       for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 1111 of 2017

                                  Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       D Ramakrishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy, Nishant Sharma,
       D Tejaswi Reddy, Ms. Adviteeya.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Kumar Vaibhaw, Devrishi Tyagi, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Srikanth Varma
       Mudunuru, Yatharth Kansal.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                         Judgment

       N.V. Anjaria, J.

       Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against
       judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 of the High Court for the State
       of Telangana at Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2017.
       Thereby, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against
       the appellant recorded by learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
       Offences Under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional
       District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in SC/
       ST S.C. No.51 of 2014 and held the appellant guilty of commission of
       offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601
       and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and
       The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892.
       2.1. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and was
            further required to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in respect of his



1    Hereinafter, “IPC”.
2    Hereinafter, “SC/ST Act”.
298                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            conviction for the offence under Section 302, IPC. For the
            offence under Section 323, IPC, the appellant was sentenced to
            six months’ simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section
            3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the appellant came to be sentenced to life
            imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation
            to undergo three months simple imprisonment. In respect of
            the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, he was further
            sentenced to imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of
            Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further
            one-month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed
            to run concurrently.
3.     The prosecution case was inter alia that on 12.05.2013 at around
       8:30 in the morning, the deceased named Shiva Shankar, along
       with his friend Narendar-PW3 was passing nearby the house of
       the appellant. Noticing them, the appellant questioned about Shiva
       Shankar’s returning to the village. It was stated that earlier on
       14.02.2013, deceased Shiva Shankar had eloped with appellant’s
       younger sister aged 18 years. They both, however, returned to the
       village on the very next day. It was stated that in view of the said
       incident of elopement, a Panchayat was held in the village and that
       it was decided in the Panchayat that deceased Shiva Shankar would
       go out of the village Ogipur, and the girl would stay at her parental
       house. In that view, Shiva Shankar went to stay at Ekmai Village of
       Basheerabad Mandal to start living with his maternal uncles-PW2
       and another.
       3.1. It was the further prosecution case that despite the aforesaid
            decision of the Panchayat, the deceased came back to village
            Ogipur to attend the wedding of his friend and when he was
            passing near the house of the appellant on the day of the
            incident, the appellant confronted him. It was stated that a
            quarrel took place between the appellant and the said Shiva
            Shankar, in a heat of temper. The appellant took a shabad
            stone sized 6 inches in length, 4 inches in width and 3 inches
            thick, and started beating Shiva Shankar with the said stone.
            3.1.1. It is the prosecution case that Narendar-PW3 who had
                   been accompanying Shiva Shankar went to the place
                   of mother of the deceased named Padmamma-PWl to
                   inform her. Padmamma-PWl, having come to know about
                   the incident, rushed to the scene of the offence. It was
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                           299

                    Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


                     claimed that when she intervened, she also suffered
                     injuries below her left eye. It was further stated that in
                     course of these happenings, PW1 was abused by the
                     appellant with a casteist slur.
           3.1.2. PW1 took her son-injured Shiva Shankar to the
                  Government Hospital, Tandur, where the injured was
                  given first aid, thereafter, was advised to go to the
                  General Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment. When
                  Shiva Shankar was being shifted to the Hyderabad
                  Hospital, he died on the way succumbing to his injuries.
           3.1.3. The appellant as well as the deceased belonged to
                  the same village Ogipur of Ranga Reddy District.
                  The appellant was a member of the backward class
                  community known as ‘Mudiraj’, whereas the deceased
                  came from the Scheduled Caste Community ‘Mala’.
           3.1.4. The incident came to knowledge of the Sub Inspector
                  of Police, Mr. P.S. Karankote-PW8. PW8 visited the
                  Government Hospital to inquire, recorded the statement
                  of PW1 and registered a case as Crime No.79 of 2013
                  in respect of the offence under Section 324, IPC and
                  Section 3(l)(x) of the SC/ST Act. In view of the death
                  of Shiva Shankar, the offences under Sections 302,
                  IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were added.
     3.2. The prosecution, seeking to prove its case examined in all
          eleven witnesses, in addition to relying on certain documentary
          evidence. The oral evidence was led by the prosecution through
          Padmamma-PW1 who was the mother of the deceased, Maruthi-
          PW2-the younger brother of PW1 and also one Narendar-PW3
          who was claimed to have gone to PW1 to inform her when the
          incident occurred. PW3 was declared hostile. Tammanna-PW4
          and Narsimha Reddy-PW5 were examined who too turned
          hostile. Ashappa-PW6 was a Panch witness examined who
          had signed the Panchanama-Ex. P5 along with one Mallappa,
          who did not enter the box. Inquest Panchanama-Ex. P7 was
          prepared and signed by PW6 along with said Malappa.
           3.2.1. Dr. Sridhar-PW7 was the Medical Officer. He conducted
                  the postmortem examination and signed the Postmortem
                  Report-Ex. P8. Mr. Pavan Kumar-PW8, Sub Inspector
300                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                    of Police was examined who upon receipt of information
                    on the date of incident from Government Hospital,
                    went there and recorded the statement of PW1. K.
                    Anantha Reddy-PW9, was working as Tahsildar at the
                    relevant time and who issued caste certificates of the
                    complainant, deceased and the accused was examined.
                    Further examined was one Shaik Ismail-PW11 in his
                    capacity as Assistant Commissioner of Police as he
                    took up further investigation. G. Udaya Kumar-PW10,
                    police officer who investigated the offence and visited
                    the scene of offence on the next day i.e., 13.05.2013
                    was examined.
            3.2.2. Panchanama at Ex. P5 and rough sketch at Ex. P6
                   were produced. The FSL Report-Ex. P16 suggested
                   that on the stone (Item No. 1) and on the cotton shirt
                   (Item No. 3), the human blood was found. The Wound
                   Certificate was added at Ex. P15. The Postmortem
                   Examination Report was at Ex. P8.
       3.3. The Trial Court considering the aforementioned evidence
            proceeded to convict the appellant. In recording guilt and
            consequential conviction, the Trial Court attached weight to
            the evidence of Padmamma-PW1-mother of the deceased and
            Narendar-PW3 who were the two projected as eyewitnesses
            to the incident. The Trial Court observed that PW1 had rushed
            to the place of offence and tried to rescue the deceased and
            at that time the accused also beat her on the left eye and
            abused her and mud-slanged about her caste. According to the
            Trial Court, immediately after the incident, PW1 informed her
            brothers Maruthi-PW2 and Venkataiah-LW3 telephonically. The
            Trial Court noticed from the prosecution story that the crime
            took place in the backdrop of the accused having eloped some
            time back with the sister of the appellant, and the dispute was
            subsequently settled by the Panchayat asking the deceased
            to keep himself away from the village.
            3.3.1. In the view of the Trial Court, the evidence of PW2, who
                   is the brother of PW1, was stood fully corroborated with
                   the evidence of PW1 with regard to the fact stated by
                   PW1 about the incident and in respect of the injuries
                   sustained by the deceased. A view was taken also
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          301

                    Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


                     that recovery of the stone from the scene of offence
                     supported the version of PW1 about the occurrence and
                     further that the FSL Report-Ex. P16 showed the blood
                     group tallying with the blood detected on the clothes
                     of the deceased.
4.   Heard learned counsel Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy assisted by
     learned advocate-on-record Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy and other learned
     advocates for the appellant, as well as learned counsel Mr. Kumar
     Vaibhaw with learned advocate-on-record Mr. Devina Sehgal and
     other advocates for the respondent, at length.
5.   Surveying the evidence briefly, both oral and documentary mentioned
     above, which is appreciated by the Trial Court and considered by
     the High Court in arriving at the finding of guilt against the appellant,
     would be useful in judging the merits of such conclusion. Padmamma-
     PW1 and Narendar-PW3 were shown as eyewitnesses who were
     stated to have witnessed the incident. The narrated story was that
     PW3 was a person who accompanied deceased Shiva Shankar while
     passing nearby the house of the appellant on the day of incident in
     the morning. According to PW1, she came to know about the incident
     from PW3 who stated to have rushed to PW1’s place to inform her
     when the appellant was allegedly beating the deceased.
     5.1. PW1 deposed that she and PW3 both rushed to the place and
          at that time found that the deceased was being beaten by the
          appellant with a stone. PW1 further testified that her son had
          taken away the sister of the accused three months ago and
          the said event was the root cause for the incident. As per the
          evidence of PW1, at that time a Panchayat was held in the
          village which considered the issue of elopement of the sister
          of the accused and the deceased.
           5.1.1. The prosecution case hinged on the story told in their
                  evidence by PW1 and PW3. However, PW3 was
                  declared to be hostile since he resiled from the story
                  and did not support the prosecution. While PW1 stated
                  that PW3 informed her about the incident and the two
                  had gone to the place of offence, the hostile PW3
                  deposed that the deceased asked him to go away and
                  thereupon he returned to his house at Ogipur village and
                  that he never went to the house of PW1. In his cross
                  examination, PW3 stated that his statement recorded
302                                                      [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


               under Section 161, Cr.PC-Ex. P2 was false and was
               made at the instance of the accused. He mentioned
               that the place of offence was the main road where there
               were movement of people and the quarry trucks/lorries
               almost twenty-four hours.
       5.1.2. Maruthi-PW2, younger brother of PW1 deposed that
              he received telephonic instructions from PW1 about
              the incident of beating of deceased by the accused
              and further that he and one Venkataiah went to the
              Government Hospital where the injured was shifted.
              PW2 also spoke on the lines of PW1, about the incident
              of elopement of the sister of the accused with the
              deceased and about the Panchayat having been held
              which decided to require the girl to be sent to her parents’
              house and the accused to leave the Ogipur village.
       5.1.3. The other witnesses included Tammanna-PW4 and
              Narsimha Reddy-PW5. While they both stated that
              they knew the accused and his sister Sivamala, both
              became hostile witnesses. Each of the two stated that
              none of them had conducted any Panchayat regarding
              the issue of elopement of Sivamala and the deceased.
              Ashappa-PW6 and one Mallappa were the two Panchas
              who signed Panchanama-Ex. P5. According to PW6,
              a stone was found at the scene of offence which was
              seized. Inquest Panchanama-Ex. P7 was also signed by
              PW6 and said Mallappa, PW6 stated that the place of
              offence was the main road, a place where the quarries
              were situated at some distance and there was movement
              of vehicles.
       5.1.4. The medical evidence consisted of testimony of
              Dr. Sridhar-PW7 who conducted postmortem on
              13.05.2015 and issued the Postmortem Report.
              The evidence of PW7 and details mentioned in the
              Postmortem Report-Ex. P8 as well as injuries described
              are mentioned in detail in the succeeding discussion.
       5.1.5. Mr. Pavan Kumar-PW8 was the Sub Inspector of Police
              who upon receiving the information about the incident on
              12.05.2013, went to the Government Hospital, recorded
              the statement of PW1 and registered FIR. K. Anantha
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                           303

                    Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


                     Reddy-PW9, working as Tahsildar at the relevant time,
                     issued caste certificates. Further investigation was taken
                     up by one Shaik Ismail-PW11 who referred to the FSL
                     Report-Ex. P16 to suggest that on the stone and on
                     the cotton shirt, the human blood was found. G. Udaya
                     Kumar-PW10, the police officer who investigated the
                     offence and visited the scene of offence on the next
                     day that is, on 13.05.2013 stated that Ashappa and
                     Mallappa were called for the purpose of preparing the
                     Panchanama, who drew rough sketch. The stone was
                     recovered. From the caste certificates received, the
                     name of community of the complainant, deceased and
                     the accused was revealed.
     5.2. Before proceeding to consider the import and effect of the oral
          evidence led in support of the prosecution case, the medical
          evidence may be referred to for its relevance. PW7 mentioned
          external antemortem injuries to be of the kind and nature thus,
          (i) Contusion over left temporal region of skull of size 2 x 1 cm
          with fracture of temporal bone. (ii) Left black eye present. (iii)
          Laceration over chin of size 2 x 1 x 0.5 cms. (iv) Contusion
          over right side of forehead size 1 x 0.5 cms. (v) Contusion over
          right forearm of size of 3 x 2 cms fracture upper end radius. (vi)
          Contusion over chest wall of size 2 x 1 cms. (vii) Laceration of
          size 3 x 2 x 0.5 cms over right great toe with fracture metatarsal.
          (viii) Laceration of size of 3 x 1 x 1 cms over right lower end
          of radius fracture.
           5.2.1. The Postmortem Report-Ex. P8 dated 14.05.2013
                  prepared by Dr. Sridhar-PW7 mentioned that the
                  deceased died on account of “massive intracranial
                  haemorrhage secondary to head injury leading to
                  cardiorespiratory arrest”.
           5.2.2. There were noticeable discrepancies and mismatching
                  details in the Inquest Report-Ex. P6, in the Postmortem
                  Examination Report-Ex. P8 and in the evidence of PW7
                  in that regard, which have remained non-explanatory.
                  While in the Inquest Report-Ex. P7, it was mentioned
                  that a postmortem examination was concluded at 02.30
                  pm on 13.05.2013. In the Postmortem Examination-Ex.
                  P8, it was stated that the postmortem was concluded
304                                                              [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


                         on 14.05.2013 at 4.00 pm. This was an evident
                         inconsistency in the indication of time in the conclusion
                         of the postmortem examination.
             5.2.3. The opinion given as to the cause of death was that it
                    was 12 to 24 hours prior to the time of conducting the
                    autopsy. If the date of 14.05.2013 is to be believed,
                    then it does not correlate with the time of death which
                    was indicated to be 12 to 24 hours before the time of
                    autopsy. The doctor-PW7 who conducted postmortem
                    examination has not been able to explain satisfactorily
                    these discrepancies found in Ex. P7 and Ex. P8 regarding
                    the date of conducting of postmortem examination and
                    the time of death. The answer given by PW7 in this
                    regard was only that he erred in showing the date to
                    be 14.05.2013 due to night duty as it was 24 hours
                    long duty. This explanation hardly inspired credibility. A
                    doctor conducting the postmortem examination cannot
                    be believed to have skipped accuracy on such counts.
6.     The proposition is settled that the postmortem report by itself
       cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence. It needs to
       be corroborated by other oral evidence. In Ghulam Hassan Beigh
       vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others3 , the above position
       regarding the evidentiary value of the postmortem report was stated,
             ‘...The post-mortem report of the doctor is his previous
             statement based on his examination of the dead body.
             It is not substantive evidence. The doctor’s statement in
             court is alone the substantive evidence. The post-mortem
             report can be used only to corroborate his statement under
             Section 157, or to refresh his memory under Section 159,
             or to contradict his statement in the witness box under
             Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. A medical witness
             called in as an expert to assist the court is not a witness
             of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is
             really of an advisory character given on the basis of the
             symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is
             expected to put before the court all materials inclusive of



3    (2022) 12 SCC 657
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                        305

                    Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


           the data which induced him to come to the conclusion
           and enlighten the court on the technical aspect of the
           case by explaining the terms of science so that the court
           although, not an expert may form its own judgment on
           those material...’ (Para 31)
     6.1. Since in absence of corroboration the postmortem report is not
          a substantive piece of evidence, the testimony of medical expert
          assumes importance in establishing the facts mentioned in the
          postmortem report. As stated above, Dr. Sridhar-PW7 was not
          in a position to offer satisfactory and acceptable explanation
          regarding the discrepancies and contradictions found in the
          Postmortem Examination Report-Ex. P8. When on one hand
          the Postmortem Examination Report-Ex. P8 was irreconcilable
          in terms of the details and dates mentioned therein which could
          not be sufficiently explained by the doctor, and on the other
          hand the Wound Certificate-Ex. P15 did not bear any date,
          the evidentiary value of this set of medical evidence stands
          diminished to nil.
7.   While the medical evidence in the backdrop, operated as per the
     above details, the conspectus of oral evidence, when analysed, was
     found to be containing major discrediting aspects for the prosecution.
     Recollecting at this stage the primary story set up by the prosecution,
     the version was that the deceased had earlier eloped with the sister
     of the appellant, and the issue had been taken up by the Panchayat
     stated to have been then held, wherein it was decided that the
     deceased would leave the village and the girl was sent back to parent’s
     house. The deceased returned to the village to attend the marriage
     of a friend and when passing by the house of the appellant along
     with PW3 in the morning, the altercation occurred and the deceased
     Shiva Shankar was done to death by the appellant. Padmamma-
     PW1-mother of the deceased, according to the story, rushed to the
     scene of the incident upon being informed by PW3, where she was
     also abused in terms of her caste and it was further claimed that
     she also suffered some injuries below the eye.
     7.1. Furthermore, it comes in the evidence of G. Udaya Kumar-
          PW10, the investigating police officer and Ashappa-PW6 who
          was a Panch witness as well as Narendar-PW3 who testified
          that the scene of offence was the main road, it was a place
          where quarries were located nearby and further that there was
306                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            a vehicular traffic as trucks and lorries were used to pass day
            and night. It is only reasonable to believe that since the scene
            of offence was a public place on the main road humming with
            traffic, there would have been persons who had witnessed the
            incident. The prosecution however did not examine anybody
            from the nearby. This aspect gains significance, when as per
            the total oral evidence analysed herein, the very occurrence
            of the incident has slipped into a doubtful story.
       7.2. The event of elopement of the sister of the appellant and the
            post-holding of Panchayat in the village etc. was shown to be
            the genesis to the incident. The material parts of the version
            of the prosecution evidence have destroyed the prosecution
            story on this score. First is the aspect of Narendar-PW3 going
            to the house of the mother of the deceased-PW1 to inform her
            about the incident and PW1 thereupon going to the scene of the
            incident and second, the factum that the Panchayat was held.
            The prosecution case about Narendar-PW3 going to inform
            PW1–mother of the deceased fell flat. PW3 turned hostile and
            testified in terms that the deceased asked him to go away,
            whereupon he returned to his house at Ogipur and never went
            to the house of PW1. Thus, what was deposed by PW3 in terms
            contradicted the statement of PW1. When PW3 was asked that
            he had stated about going to the house of PW1 to inform her in
            his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC-Ex. P2, PW3 stated that
            it was a false statement made at the instance of the accused.
       7.3. Whereas PW1 asserted the said twin aspects Tammanna-
            PW4 and Narsimha Reddy-PW5 who both separately stated
            that none of them conducted any Panchayat about the issue
            of elopement of the sister of the accused Sivamala and the
            deceased. There is no other evidence which could corroborate
            the factum of holding of Panchayat etc.
       7.4. The contention on behalf of the appellant that the mother of the
            deceased Padmamma-PW1 was an interested witness and that
            her evidence has to be seen as doubtful could not be brushed
            aside lightly when evaluated in light of the aforementioned
            contradictions disproving her deposed narratives.
       7.5. It is true that the court is not expected to mechanically reject
            the evidence of a witness on the ground that the witness is a
            partisan witness or relative. This Court in Masalti vs. State
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                               307

                        Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


             of Uttar Pradesh4, speaking through a five judge bench, put
             a note of caution in appreciating the evidence given by an
             interested witness,
      7.6. The following observations could be applied in the present case,
                    ‘… There is no doubt that when a criminal court has
                    to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are
                    partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in
                    weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are
                    discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the
                    evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not
                    the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all
                    matters which must be taken into account...’ (Para-14)
8.    In Bhaskarrao and Others vs. State of Maharashtra5, this Court
      highlighted that a witness who has a strong interest in the result
      should not be allowed to be weighed on the same scales with those
      who do not have such interest in the outcome. Treating these two
      categories at par, stated the court, would open the doors for the court
      to arrive at a perverted or distorted truth. It was observed,
             ‘…This sound rule which remains the bulwark of this
             system, and which determines the value of evidence
             derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and
             carefully observed and enforced. There is no dispute
             about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect
             his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the
             influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge
             correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly,
             he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an
             impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under
             such influences, man will, even though not consciously,
             suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide
             favourable colour…’ (Para-36)
      8.1. This Court opined that the above are the controlling considerations
           for assessing the credibility of human testimony, and the same
           should not be overlooked while applying the rules of evidence
           and while determining its weight.


4    [1964] 8 SCR 133
5    (2018) 6 SCC 591
308                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       8.2. Such an approach while evaluating the evidence of a related
            or interested witness calls for extra caution when the evidence
            of such witness suffers from contradictions and discrepancies,
            for, knowingly or unknowingly a departure from telling the truth
            by a witness belonging to such category naturally leads to give
            rise to inconsistencies. The discrepancies and inconsistencies
            in the testimony of a related or interested witness will
            have to be viewed in such context, and more particularly
            when other evidence on record sufficiently demolishes the
            evidence of the related or interested witness, its evidence
            would entirely lose its reliability to stand in support of the
            prosecution.
       8.3. The law as to how to appreciate and apply the evidence of
            a hostile witness is also not far away to search. In Khujji @
            Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh6, this court
            observed,
                   ‘…the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
                   rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose
                   to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The
                   evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
                   effaced or washed off the record altogether but the
                   same can be accepted to the extent their version
                   is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny
                   thereof.’ (Para 6)
       8.4. In Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat7, this
            Court reiterated that the testimony of a hostile witness is useful
            to the extent which it supports the prosecution case. In Bhagwan
            Singh vs. State of Haryana8 also this Court held that when
            a witness is declared hostile and is cross examined with the
            permission of the court, his evidence remains admissible and
            there is no legal bar to arrive at a finding of conviction on the
            basis of the testimony of such hostile witness, if corroborated
            by other reliable evidence.



6   (1991) 3 SCC 627
7   (1999) 8 SCC 624
8   (1976) 1 SCC 389
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                             309

                       Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana


             8.4.1. This Court in Himanshu alias Chintu vs. State (NCT
                    of Delhi)9 after referring to the law on the evidence of
                    the hostile witness as above underlined as under,
                           ‘The aforesaid legal position leaves no manner
                           of doubt that the evidence of a hostile witness
                           remains admissible evidence, and it is open to
                           the court to rely upon the dependable part of
                           that evidence which is found to be acceptable
                           and duly corroborated by some other reliable
                           evidence available on record…’ (Para-31)
             8.4.2. Thus, the evidence of the hostile witness is admissible,
                    once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence.
                    In Khujji (supra) and in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai
                    (supra), it was held that it is open to the court to have
                    a conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness.
9.    Therefore, when the testimony of a hostile witness is admissible
      subject to be feeded by corroboration and the conviction on that
      basis could be arrived at, the reverse is also true as a canon of
      appreciation of evidence. What necessarily implies is that as the
      evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting the accused,
      such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the
      purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified by the
      hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the other evidence
      on record, either ocular or documentary. The dictum would be that
      the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of
      hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution
      case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through
      it and could be founded therein.
10. Reverting back to the facts and the kind of evidence led by the
    prosecution, the interaction of evidence of PW1 and PW3 read with
    the evidence of PW4 and PW5, demolished the very fulcrum of the
    prosecution case, in as much as the very occurrence of the incident
    was discredited and became liable to be disbelieved, cementing
    doubts further by the fact that though the incident was claimed to
    have occurred in the open place humming with vehicular traffic, no
    person from the nearby was examined as a witness to support and
    establish the incident. Thus, the occurrence of incident itself could


9   (2011) 2 SCC 36
310                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       not be said to have been proved by the prosecution. The genesis
       of the incident and the motive of the crime were also not proved as
       the prosecution evidence could not establish the story of holding of
       Panchayat pursuant to the elopement of the sister of the accused
       and the deceased.
       10.1. Injuries in the postmortem report became doubtful, for the
             Postmortem Report-Ex. P8 itself in its veracity stood strewn
             with discrepancies, contradictions and irreconcilable facts which
             the medical person in charge-PW7 could not explain. The
             Investigating Officer admitted that he visited the crime scene
             only on the next day, thus, the crime scene was not protected.
       10.2. In wake of such weak, contradictory and crumbling evidence,
             where the prosecution miserably struggled to be finally unable
             to prove its case, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court
             and confirmed by the High Court is not sustainable. Both the
             courts committed a concurrent error in convicting the appellant.
             The judgment and order of the trial court and the High Court
             deserve to be set at naught.
       10.3. As a result, judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 passed
             by the High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in
             Criminal Appeal No. 1111 of 2017 confirming the conviction and
             sentence recorded by learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial
             of Offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII
             Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District
             in SC/ST S.C. No.51 of 2014 holding the appellant guilty of
             offences charged against him under the IPC and under the
             SC/ST Act, 1989, is hereby set aside.
       10.4. The appellant is acquitted and shall be set at liberty forthwith
             unless required to be detained in respect of any other offence.
11. The Appeal stands allowed.
       Any interlocutory application, as may be pending, shall not survive.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan