IMPORTANT POINT
Interestedness of witnesses for further prosecution version, relationship would not be factor to affect credibility of witness but court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302/34 — Conviction — Relation witnesses — Appellant with three other accused armed with weapons knife and big stick and iron pipe attacked deceased and PW1 and PW3 were eye- witnesses of occurrence — Conviction of all four accused by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court — Appeal by A2 alone — Plea that prior to lodging of FIR there was another report recorded on basis of information sent from hospital having not been taken before trial Court or High Court, could not be accepted now — PW1 and PW3 were claimed to be related to deceased — Interestedness of witnesses for furthering prosecution version — Relationship would not be a factor to affect credibility of a witness — Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it was cogent and credible — Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made — Recovery of weapon after a long period and those not sent for forensic examination did not dilute evidentiary value of prosecution version — Conviction called for no interference.
       Held : It is to be noted that neither before the Trial Court nor before the High Court any plea was taken about their being earlier report regarding alleged incidence. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the stand as presently urged. (Para 8)
       The other stand relates to the evidentiary value of statements of PWs 1 and 3 who were claimed to be related to the deceased. (Para 9)
       In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para 10)
       Even if the recovery of the weapons as claimed was after a long period and those were not sent for forensic examination that does not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of the prosecution version. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant and two others. By the impugned judgment the conviction of the appellant and the two others for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) is maintained. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and the three others and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- with default stipulation. Only three of them had preferred appeal before the High Court.

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

For the sake of convenience, the accused persons-appellants are described as A1, A2 and A3. The other accused is described as A4.

4. Sivaraman (A1) is a resident of Periyairusampalayam village. Mano (A2) and Nagappan (A3) are residents of Ariyankuppam village. Sivaraj (PW-1) and Ganpathy (PW-3) are brothers and they are also residents of Periyairusampalayam. There was quarrel between A1 and PW-1 at the time of festival at Angalamman temple in Periyairusampalayam village. The said quarrel was pacified by one Pasupathy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), son of another brother of PWs 1 and 3 and thereby A1 had impression that the deceased was a supporter of Srinivasan. Due to that impression, there was enmity between A1 and the deceased. On 8.5.2000, at about 8.30 p.m., PW-1, PW-3, Vijayan, Murugan, Babu and Veerappan were engaged in conversation near the electric post on the way to graveyard. At that time, the deceased was coming towards the way of graveyard for the purpose of attending nature’s calls. PW-1 was also following him. At that time, suddenly A1 armed with knife, A2 armed with knife and A3 and A-4 armed with a big stick and iron pipe respectively came from behind a thorny bush and began to attack the deceased. Particularly A1 and A2 attacked the deceased with knives on his neck and A3 attacked the deceased, with the big stick. Consequently, the deceased sustained injuries and fell down. On seeing it, PW-1 and others rushed near and the accused persons ran away from the occurrence place. The injured deceased was taken to the hospital at Pondicherry, but on the way, he died. Thereafter, PW-1 gave complaint marked as Ex.P1 to the Sub Inspector of police viz., Balakrishnan (PW-12) at about 5.00 a.m. on 9.5.2000. On the basis of Ex.P1, PW-12 registered a case in Crime no.132 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed FIR marked as Ex. P15 and sent the same to the Magistrate and copies to the higher officials. Subsequently, the Inspector of police viz., Sundarrajan, (PW-13) received the said FIR at about 5.30 a.m. on 9.5.2000 and took up the investigation and proceeded to Periyairusampalayam village and visited the occurrence place in the presence of Gopu (PW-7) and Palani (PW-8), prepared observation mahazar and also recovered from the occurrence place M.Os. 1 to 8 by preparing mahzar marked as Ex.P18 and sent those M.Os. to the Magistrate. In continuation of the investigation, he proceeded to the Pondicherry Government Hospital and conducted inquest upon the dead body of Pasupathy in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared inquest report marked as Ex. P 19 and also examined witnesses and then made arrangements for sending the body for post mortem through Head Constable Thukkaram with the requisition letter marked as Ex. P 20 and he searched for the accused persons. In the meanwhile, Dr. Balaraman (PW-10) conducted post mortem and found the following five external injuries.

“1. Bluish discolouration and swelling present over right upper eye lid.

2. Lacerated injury 4 x 1 x bond deep present over left Parietal region of head with fracture of underlying bone.

3. Lacerated injury 5 x 1 x bone deep over left occipital region of head.

4. Lacera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 439

IMPORTANT POINTInterestedness of witnesses for further prosecution version, relationship would not be factor to affect credibility of witness but court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
Interestedness of witnesses for further prosecution version, relationship would not be factor to affect credibility of witness but court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.