The Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man who had been serving a life sentence for murder and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, finding that the prosecution had fundamentally failed to prove its case through credible, consistent evidence.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered the verdict on May 13, 2026, in an appeal filed by Talari Naresh against the State of Telangana. The High Court for the State of Telangana had earlier confirmed the conviction in February 2025, but the Supreme Court disagreed sharply with that conclusion.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that on the morning of May 12, 2013, Talari Naresh attacked a young man named Shiva Shankar near his house in village Ogipur, Ranga Reddy District, using a stone. Shiva Shankar died on the way to hospital in Hyderabad from the injuries he sustained.
The backdrop to the alleged attack involved Shiva Shankar having eloped with the appellant's younger sister three months earlier. Though the couple returned the next day and a village Panchayat reportedly settled the matter, the prosecution claimed lingering resentment led to the fatal assault when Shiva Shankar returned to the village for a friend's wedding.
The Trial Court convicted Naresh under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Telangana High Court upheld that verdict.
What the Evidence Actually Showed
The Supreme Court undertook a close re-examination of all witnesses and documentary evidence, and found it to be riddled with contradictions that the prosecution could not reconcile.
The case rested largely on the testimony of Padmamma (PW1), the deceased's mother, who claimed she rushed to the scene after being informed by Narendar (PW3), a companion of the deceased. However, PW3 turned hostile, flatly denying that he had gone to PW1's house to inform her — directly contradicting her account.
He further stated his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC was false and had been made at the instance of the accused.
The Panchayat — a central element of the prosecution's motive theory — was also denied by two other witnesses (PW4 and PW5), both of whom turned hostile and stated no such gathering had taken place.
Critically, the incident was alleged to have occurred on a busy main road with continuous quarry truck traffic. Despite this, the prosecution examined no independent passerby or bystander as a witness.
Court's Key Observations
The Court found the medical evidence equally unreliable. The Postmortem Report contained a glaring discrepancy — the Inquest Report indicated the postmortem concluded on May 13, 2013, while the Postmortem Report itself stated May 14, 2013. The doctor's explanation that he made an error due to a 24-hour night duty was rejected outright.
"A doctor conducting the postmortem examination cannot be believed to have skipped accuracy on such counts."— Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court of India
The Court held that since the postmortem report by itself is not substantive evidence and must be corroborated by the doctor's oral testimony, the failure of PW7 to explain the discrepancies rendered the entire medical evidence of negligible value. The Wound Certificate also bore no date, further weakening the prosecution's medical record.
On the law governing interested witnesses, the Court reaffirmed that courts must apply heightened scrutiny when the sole supporting witness is a close relative of the deceased. Drawing on the Constitution Bench ruling in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the later judgment in Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that bias — even unconscious bias — can lead a witness to suppress, modify, or colour facts in favour of a desired outcome.
The Court also laid down a noteworthy principle regarding hostile witnesses: just as the testimony of a hostile witness may be used to sustain a conviction when corroborated, it can equally be employed to support an acquittal when it credibly undermines the prosecution's narrative.
"The testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of a hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution case, and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it."— Supreme Court of India
Court's Decision and Final Order
The Supreme Court held that the combined effect of the hostile witness testimonies of PW3, PW4, and PW5, the contradictions in the evidence of PW1, the unexplained discrepancies in the postmortem report, and the failure to examine any independent witnesses from the scene made it impossible to hold the prosecution's case as proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court were found to have committed concurrent errors in convicting the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Telangana High Court dated February 4, 2025, acquitted Talari Naresh of all charges, and ordered his immediate release unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence.
Case Details
Case Title: Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 13614 of 2025
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: May 13, 2026
