“Misreading of Evidence as ‘Manifest Illegality’ – Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Interference Under Article 136 in Agniraj v. State (2025)”

1. Introduction

In Agniraj & Ors. v. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police CB-CID, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1686-1688 of 2023 (decided 23 May 2025), the Supreme Court of India overturned concurrent convictions recorded by the Trial Court and the Madras High Court in a triple-murder case arising out of intense panchayat-level political rivalry. The judgment, authored by Abhay S. Oka J. (Ujjal Bhuyan J. concurring), not only acquits eleven appellants who had already served more than nine years, but also restates—and subtly expands—the circumstances in which the Supreme Court may re-appraise evidence while exercising discretionary criminal appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The decision addresses:

• Whether the Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the lower courts have “misread” or ignored material evidence;
• The evidentiary value of child witnesses, delayed eyewitnesses, fingerprint and recovery evidence that lack procedural safeguards; and
• The standard of proof required for sustaining a conviction anchored on Section 149 (unlawful assembly/common object) of the IPC.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ordered the immediate release of the appellants. Oka J. held that:

• The testimonies of the three principal prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9) were unreliable due to contradictions, unexplained delays, absence of preliminary (voir dire) questioning for the child witness, and possibilities of tutoring.
• Procedural lapses—such as failure to prepare mahazars for fingerprint lifting, recovery of weapons from open and easily accessible places, and non-holding of Test Identification Parades (TIPs)—vitiated other corroborative evidence.
• Without credible ocular evidence or unimpeachable scientific corroboration, the convictions could not stand.
• Although Article 136 jurisdiction is narrow, a “gross misreading of evidence” and “overlooking striking features” by both courts below amounted to the very “manifest illegality” that warrants Supreme Court interference.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Pappu v. State of U.P., (2022) 10 SCC 321 – reaffirmed that the Supreme Court will seldom disturb concurrent findings but will do so when there is misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice.
• Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158 – distilled five principles limiting Article 136 interference; Oka J. relies on this to emphasise that overlooking “striking features” is itself a ground for interference.
• Pritam Singh (1950), Mohinder Singh (1953), Hem Raj De­vi­lal (1954), Khacheru Singh (1956), and Saravanabhavan (1966) – classic authorities shaping the “self-imposed restraint” doctrine. The Court quotes them to underline the exceptional nature of the present interference.

By synthesising these authorities, the Court crystallises a fresh nuance: mere “misreading of evidence” by lower courts can itself constitute the “manifest illegality” or “exceptional circumstance” contemplated in earlier precedents. Thus, the apex court may re-appraise evidence where such misreading is demonstrated.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Credibility of Witnesses
   • PW-1: Political rivalry, inconsistent statements (36 accused reduced to 21, then 11), inability to explain lighting/distance, and two-hour delay in reporting.
   • PW-2: “Chance witness” surfaced 43 days later; absence of accompanying eyewitness Abdul Rehman; no threat explanation.
   • PW-9: Minor (10 yrs). No preliminary questions; no TIP; admitted tutoring by mother.
   The Court applied the settled rule that where primary testimony is shaky, corroborative evidence must be “sterling”; otherwise benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
2. Scientific & Recovery Evidence
   Fingerprints lacked mahazars; photographer PW-46 denied taking relevant photos; recovery of weapons from open/public areas long after the event – violating the “exclusive possession” requirement for Section 27 evidence. Hence, no independent corroboration.
3. Article 136 Scope
   The Court conducted a meticulous re-evaluation because both lower courts had “ignored striking features” and “misread evidence.” Such lapses, it held, equate to “manifest illegality” within the parameters laid down in Pappu and Dalbir Kaur.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Precedential Value: Establishes that misreading or ignoring critical evidence by lower courts suffices to trigger Supreme Court re-appraisal under Article 136, even in concurrent conviction scenarios.
• Trial Practice: Reinforces the necessity of:
  • Conducting voir-dire for child witnesses;
  • Holding Test Identification Parades when eyewitnesses claim first-time dock identification;
  • Preparing mahazars/panchanamas contemporaneously for forensic procedures;
  • Avoiding “collective” recoveries from open places which dilute evidentiary value.
• Appeal Strategy: Defence counsel may now more confidently argue misreading/omission of material evidence as a ground for Article 136 interference.
• Police & Prosecution: Highlights that procedural shortcuts in forensic collection and witness handling can derail otherwise strong cases upon apex scrutiny.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 136 vs Article 134 – Article 134 provides limited statutory appeals in criminal matters; Article 136 is a discretionary “special-leave” route where the Supreme Court chooses exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.
• Concurrent Findings – When both the trial court and High Court reach the same factual conclusion. Generally insulated from Supreme Court interference unless grave errors exist.
• Voir Dire – Preliminary questioning of a child witness to evaluate understanding of truth and consequences of lying before administering oath.
• Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Pre-trial procedure in which a witness identifies the accused among volunteers, ensuring reliability before “dock identification” in court.
• Mahazar/Panchanama – Contemporaneous written record of seizure, discovery, or observation prepared in presence of independent witnesses; essential for proving chain of custody.
• Section 149 IPC – Fastens vicarious liability on members of an unlawful assembly if offence is committed in prosecution of the common object.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Agniraj v. State marks a significant clarification: misreading or ignoring crucial evidence by lower courts amounts to “manifest illegality,” inviting apex intervention even under the traditionally narrow confines of Article 136. Simultaneously, the ruling is a stern reminder to investigative agencies and trial judges to adhere scrupulously to procedural safeguards when dealing with forensic evidence, child witnesses, and delayed eyewitnesses. By acquitting the appellants after nine years of incarceration, the Court underscores that the presumption of innocence endures through every appellate tier and that procedural fidelity remains the bedrock of criminal justice.