1. Murder of three persons — Conviction under Sections 302/84 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code — Appeal against concurrent findings of guilt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 368
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B.Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K.N.Wanchoo, M.Hidayatullah, Satyanarayan Raju R., V.Ramaswami, JJ.
Saravanabhavan And Govindaswamy
Versus
State Of Madras
Case No. : 129 of 1965
Date of Decision : 12/16/65
Advocates Appeared: Agrawal S.C. : Balakrishnan S. : Garg R.K. : Gupta G.D. : Mangalam S.Mohan Kumar : Prasad Sarjoo : Ramamurthi M.K. : Rangam A.V. : Singh D.P.
Advocates:
A.V.RANGAM, D.P.Singh, G.D.GUPTA, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.K.GARG, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.MOHAN KUMARA MANGALAM
A.V.RANGAM, D.P.Singh, G.D.GUPTA, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.K.GARG, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.MOHAN KUMARA MANGALAM
An approver's testimony must satisfy a double test: it must be inherently reliable and sufficiently corroborated in material particulars. In special leave appeals, concurrent findings of fact are generally not disturbed unless there is a grave error of law or a manifest misreading of evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 84 and 449 - Indian Evidence Act - Sections 114 and 138 - Constitution of India - Article 136 - Murder of three persons - Conviction based on approver's testimony - Scope of interference by the court in special leave appeals against concurrent findings - The court will not reassess evidence at large, particularly when concurrently accepted by lower courts, unless there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, deprivation of the rights of the accused, misreading of vital evidence, improper reception or rejection of evidence, or an error of law that results in a failure of justice. (Para 7)
(B) Evidence of an accomplice/approver - Double test for reliability - The appreciation of an approver's evidence must satisfy two tests: first, the witness must be reliable, which is a test common to all witnesses; second, the evidence must receive sufficient corroboration in material particulars, a test specific to tainted evidence. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
Three individuals were murdered in a residential house. The accused were convicted of murder and house-trespass based primarily on the testimony of an approver and circumstantial evidence, including a strong motive related to the potential revocation of a will, the discovery of blood-stained clothing, and fingerprints found on a lamp chimney at the scene of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The majority found the approver's testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated by the motive and physical evidence. A dissenting opinion argued that the testimony was inherently incredible due to contradictions regarding the presence of electricity at the scene and the improbability of how the fingerprints were left on the chimney.
Issues: Whether the testimony of the approver was reliable and sufficiently corroborated in material particulars to sustain the conviction of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the trial court and the High Court have concurrently found the approver's statement to be credible and corroborated by independent evidence, the appellate court under special leave jurisdiction will not interfere unless the findings are patently opposed to established judicial principles or are vitiated by an error of law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Credibility and corroboration of approver's testimony — Reliability of circumstantial evidence including fingerprints and recovered blood-stained clothing. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 )
3. Evaluation of approver's credibility — Assessment of corroborating evidence including motive and forensic findings — Analysis of inherent improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Approver's evidence must satisfy a double test: it must be reliable in itself and receive sufficient corroboration in material particulars. (Para 19 , 20 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Convictions and death sentences confirmed. (Para 12 , 34 )
6. What is the legal standard for accepting the testimony of an approver?
An approver's evidence must satisfy a double test: first, the court must determine if the witness is reliable in themselves; second, the testimony must receive sufficient corroboration in material particulars to connect the accused with the crime. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. What principles guide the Supreme Court's exercise of jurisdiction in criminal appeals granted by special leave?
The court generally does not reassess evidence at large or form fresh opinions on guilt. It interferes only if there is a violation of natural justice, deprivation of rights, misreading of vital evidence, or an error of law causing a failure of justice. (Para 7 )
8. How does the Evidence Act treat the testimony of an accomplice?
Under Section 138, an accomplice is a competent witness, and a conviction is not illegal solely because it proceeds on uncorroborated testimony. However, Section 114 allows the court to presume an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. (Para 19 )
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. (On behalf of himself, Gajendragadkar, C.J.I. and Satyanarayana Raju,J.):
(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment of the High court of Madras dated 10/02/1965 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 699-761 of 1964. The appellants are two condemned prisoners under sentence of death passed on them by the Sessions Judge, Colmbator and confirmed by the High court. They have been convicted under Ss. 302/84 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code on being found guilty of the murders of one Peramia Gounder, his concubine Swarnam ana Swarnams mother Meenakshi Ammal at Kullaipalayam on the night of 11/01/1964.
(2) THE scene of the offence was the residential house of Peramia Goundar on the Dharmapuram-Kangeyam Road. Peeramia Goundar was aged 65 years at the time of his death. He lost his wife 15 years ago after she had borne him four daughters. All the daughters had been married and three were living at the time of Peramias death. The daughter, who died earlier, was married to one Marimuthu Goundar and a daughter Govendammal was born of that union. Govindammal was married to Sarvanabhavan (accused-1). Peramia Goundar was the youngest of three brothers. They had separated and divided the properties between them. The eldest brother was Krishnaswami Goundar and next was Padathi Goundar. Krishnaswamis son was one Govindaswamy who had three sons, the eldest being the appellant Saravanabhavan. Padathi Goundar lias three sons and his youngest son is one Sennimalai Goundar.
(3) PERAMIA Goundar was a rich man and was in possession of lands and cash. Four of five years before his death, he kept Swaranam as his concubine. Swaranam was living in his house and had brought her mother Meenakshi Ammal to live with her. Swarnam had a brother, Balasubramaniain (P. W. 20). Peramia Goundar had taken a great interest in Balasubramaniam and had put him in the timber depot of his son-in-law Marimuthu to learn the trade and had given Marimuthu a loan of Rs. 5,000.00. Peramia Goundar had executed a will on 26/03/1947 (Ex. P-8) by which le had bequeathed his properties in favour of his three daughters and Sennimalai Goundar. He had gifted already 40 acres of land to Sennimalai Coundar. Peramia revoked the first will and executed another registered will Ex P- 9/09/1960. Under tills will, the legatees were the three daughters, Swarnam, Saravanabhavan (appellant) and his wife Govindamal. Peramia took back the lands he had given to Sennimalai Goundar and recovered the loan from Marimuthu. He then began arranging for a timber depot for Swarijams brother. Swarnam tried to arrange a marriage of her brother with Govindammals younger sister but could not bring it off as Saravanabhavan was against this marriage. After this, Swaranam induced Peramia to send away Saravanabhavan and his wife from his house. Swaranam next arranged a match with the daughter of one Muthu Goundar but Saravanabhavan told Muthu Goundar that Balasubramaniam was a spend-thrift and came from a bad family. This broke off the match and Muthu Goundar told Peramia what Saravanabhavan had told him. When this match was broken off, Peramia was angry and he began to say that he would revoke the will in which Saravanabhavan and Govindammal were legatees. There is evidence to show that on the date of the occurrence Peramia scolded Saravarabhavan and told him that he (Peramia) would revoke the will. He went to Dharampuram and told Balasubramaniam what had taken place between him and Saivanabhavan. Peramias statement was, of course, provable as a transaction resulting in his death. The same night, these three murders took place.
(4) ON 12/01/1964. Palaniammal (P. W. 9) a domestic servant of Peramia went to his residence as usual in the morning. She found the western door of the house bolted from inside and tapped on the door; there was no answer. She then went to the northern door and found it ajar. Entering the house, she got the shock of her life when
