SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1503

2008(8) Supreme 415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
State Rep. by Inspector of Police — Appellant
versus
Saravanan & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2002
Decided on : 14-10-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V.J. Francis, A. Radha Krishnan and Ms. Anupam Mishra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Related witnesses – Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. (Para 8)

        AIR 1953 SC 364; (1964) 8 SCR 133; (1999) 3 SCC 507; (2003) 6 SCC 270– Relied upon.

        (b) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. (Para 11)

        (1985) 1 SCC 505 – Relied upon.

        (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304, Part II – When the attack followed altercation without intention to murder and without any deadly weapon, the offence would be covered by section 304 Part II and not 302. (Para 14)

        JT 2007(1) SC 299 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The father of the accused respondents is the brother of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. They inherited certain property which was again divided amongst them. There were two mango trees on one acre of land which belonged to P.W. 6. The father of accused had no share in that property. According to the measurement done both the trees of mango fell within the land of P.W.6. Before the said measurement could take place the father of the accused respondents sold that tree to one Shanmugam for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-.

        2. One week prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel among P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and Murugasan on he one hand and Janaki, mother of the accused respondents, over plucking of mangoes.

        3. On the evening of 01.06.1991, P.Ws 1, 2, 3 along with deceased were attacked by the accused persons.

        4. Trial court found both the accused guilty of the offences charged with.

        5. High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both the accused of all the charges.

       Finding of the Court :

        Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. By this judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, whereby the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore and acquitted both the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them.

2. However, before we deal with the contentions raised before us in the appeal, it would be necessary to state the facts of the case leading to filing of the present appeal, which are as under:

The father of the accused respondents is the brother of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. They inherited certain property which was again divided amongst them. There were two mango trees on one acre of land at Kanililuppai village which belonged to P.W. 6. The father of accused had no share in that property. According to the measurement done both the trees of mango fell within the land of P.W.6. One of the trees had become dead tree. However, before the said measurement could take place the father of the accused respondents sold that tree to one Shanmugam for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-.

The occurrence, which gives rise to the present appeal occurred on 01.06.1991. One week prior to the occurrence, P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and Murugasan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) were plucking mango fruits from the aforesaid tree when Janaki, who is mother of the accused respondents, came there and collected some mangoes. However P.W. 6 did not allow Janaki to carry the mangoes, so collected by her. The same resulted in a wordy quarrel between P.Ws. 1, 2, the deceased and Janaki. Janaki beat the accused with a plate. Annoyed over that, P.W. 1 attacked Janaki with a stick.

On the evening of 01.06.1991, P.Ws 1, 2, 3 along with deceased and P.W. 5 went to the house of one Kanniammal for weaving work, which is located nine houses away from the house of P.W. 1. At that time, P.W. 4 was cooking in the house. Around 6.45 p.m., accused/respondent 1 and 2 (for short ‘A1’ and ‘A2’ respectively) trespassed into the house of P.W. 1 and damaged the cooking utensils. Frightened by that act of the accused, P.W. 4 informed about this incident to P.Ws. 1 to 3. From the place of weaving, P.W. 1 went back to his house and asked A1 and A2 as to why they damaged the pots. P.Ws. 2, 3, the deceased and P.W. 5 followed P.W. 1 to the house. At that stage, A1, with M.O. 1 attacked on the right side head, left upper arm and left thigh of P.W. 1, who was caught and hold tightly by A2. At the time when P.W. 2 intervened, A2 with M.O. 2 attacked upon him on his head; his right shoulder and right leg knee. The deceased, Murugesan, intervened and A1 stating that he must die and with that, attacked on the back side of his head with M.O. 1. The brain came out. Deceased was bleeding through his nose and mouth. Struck by the aforesaid blow the deceased fell down, upon which A1 and A2 started kicking the deceased. P.W. 3 intervened to prevent A1 from further assaulting deceased. A2, with M.O. 3 - bamboo stick attacked P.W. 3 on his left forehead and shoulder, resulting in the left eye of P.W. 3 getting congested. Thereafter, A1 and A2 ran away from the scene of occurrence. P.Ws 1, 2 and the deceased were taken by P.W. 5 and two others in a bullock cart to the Government Hospital at Arani. The Medical Officer, who was later on examined as P.W. 10, examined P.W. 1 and found a number of injuries on his person. He also examined P.W. 2 and found a number of injuries on his person as well. P.W. 3 was also examined in the Government Hospital and on such examination a number of injuries were also found on his person. All the injuries found on P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 were recorded in the accident register, which is marked as Exhibit P.12. Intimation, Exhibit P.13, regarding the admission of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and the deceased in the Hospital was also sent to police station at Arani. On receipt of the aforesaid intimation, Exhibit P.13, from the Gov






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top