Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1354
2009(5) Supreme 763
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Padmanaban —Appellant
versus
State By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1375 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6729 of 2006]
with
Criminal Appeal Np. 1376 of 2009
Decided on : 31-07-2009
For the Appellant :V. Kanagraj, Sr. Adv., S. Thananjayan, P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Nituja Prakash, Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R. Nedumaran, V. G. Pragasam, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
No doubt lodging of a First Information Report at the earliest possible opportunity is desirable. But, the courts cannot also ignore the ground realities that the relatives of the deceased would give priority to the treatment of a severely injured person.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 452, 341 and 302 – Prosecution of appellants along with coaccused persons for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with casuarina sticks- Trial judge recorded a judgment of conviction against Accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 8-Appeals thereagainst – High Court accepted the appeals preferred by the Accused Nos. 6 to 8 on the premise that no overt act had been attributed to them as also on the ground that PW-3 did not assign any specific role so far as they were concerned but dismissed the appeals of appellants – Appeals-Even though prosecution witnesses PWs 1 and 2 were closely related to the deceased but the same, by itself, can not be a ground for rejecting their testimonies outright-PW-3 was not related to the deceased – The injuries suffered by deceased had been proved – The medical evidences in no uncertain terms corroborated the depositions of the eye-witnesses-The injuries on the person of the deceased were found to have been inflicted by appellants and appellants alone – The eye-witnesses account clearly proved the motive on the part of accused to commit the said offence – The deceased being a member of the Naidu Community was reprimanded by his community member as he had tried to do something for the members of the other community-Appellants along with others were members of an unlawful assembly-They came to the shop of the deceased with deadly weapons – It was witnessed, apart from PWs 1 and 2 also, by PW-3 who was owner of a tailoring shop which was situated by the side of the shop of the deceased – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 16, 17)
Criminal Trial-Delay in lodging FIR -No doubt lodging of a First Information Report at the earliest possible opportunity is desirable-But, the courts cannot also ignore the ground realities that the relatives of the deceased would give priority to the treatment of a severely injured person- All attempts would first be made to save his life- The action on the part of the prosecution witnesses, in giving priority to the treatment to the injured was wholly justifiable-Hence held that some delay might have been caused in lodging of the First Information Report, but, the same had sufficiently been explained. (Paras 18 to 20)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 452, 341 and 302 – Appeal against conviction – Contention that appellants had committed an offence only under Section 304, Part II of IPC held unacceptable- Appellants had formed an unlawful assembly- They came to the place of occurrence with deadly weapons- The overt acts attributed to them resulted in causing serious injuries on the head of the deceased- They not only were grievous in nature, the skull of the deceased was also found fractured- The intensity of the assault on the person of the deceased by the appellants, hence could be well imagined – When three injuries had been caused on vital parts of the body, it could be said that appellants knew that said injuries were likely to cause death or cause such bodily injury which may result in death – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 23, 26)
Facts of the Case :
Appellants along with coaccused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with casuarina sticks. Trial judge recorded a judgment of conviction against Accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 8.On Appeals thereagainst, High Court accepted the appeals preferred by the Accused Nos. 6 to 8 on the premise that no overt act had been attributed to them as also on the ground that PW-3 did not assign any specific role so far as they were concerned but dismissed the appeals of appellants.
2. Aggrieved,appellants have preferred present appeal.
Findings of the Court :
Even though prosecution witnesses PWs 1 and 2 were closely related to the deceased but the same, by itself, held not to be a ground for rejecting their testimonies outright.PW-3 was not related to the deceased. The injuries suffered by deceased had been proved. The medical evidences in no uncertain terms corroborated the depositions of the eye-witnesses. The injuries on the person of the deceased were found to have been inflicted by appellants and appellants alone. The eye-witnesses account clearly proved the motive on the part of accused to commit the said offence. The deceased being a member of the Naidu Community was reprimanded by his community member as he had tried to do something for the members of the other community. Appellants along with others were members of an unlawful assembly. They came to the shop of the deceased with deadly weapons. The overt acts attributed to them resulted in causing serious injuries on the head of the deceased. It was witnessed, apart from PWs 1 and 2 also, by PW-3 who was owner of a tailoring shop which was situated by the side of the shop of the deceased. Conviction of appellants held not liable to be interfered with.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. Bammiyampatti is a small village situated in the District of Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. Amongst others, it is inhabitated by two communities known as ‘Naidu’ community and ‘Adi Dravida’ community. The fact that there has been longstanding enmity between the members of the said communities is not in dispute.
3. A function was to be organized by Adi Dravida community. Rangasamy, deceased was having a grocery shop. He despite being belonging to the Naidu community, permitted the members of the other community to take electricity from his shop. Having come to learn of the same, the accused persons, originally eight in number, got infuriated. Rangasamy was threatened with dire consequences for his act in supplying electrical energy to the members belonging to the Adi-Dravida community at about 10 p.m. on 29.03.1997. Next morning, i.e., on 30.03.1997, at about 11.30 a.m., the accused persons came to his shop with casuarina sticks, trespassed therein and at the instigation of Accused No. 1 T. Purushothaman Accused No. 3 Murugan and Accused Nos. 6 to 8 caught him whereafter Accused No. 2 Ravi hit the deceased with a casuarina stick on the left side of the head, Accused No. 4 Mohan assaulted him on the right side of the head with a casuarina stick and Accused No. 5 V. Padmanaban assaulted him on the right side of the face near the eye causing grievous injuries to him. The incident was witnessed by PW-1 Viswanathan, PW-2 Chandra and PW-3 Raman. It is not much in dispute that PWs 1 and 2 along with one Govindasamy took the injured Rangasamy to the Omalur Government Hospital at about 12.20 p.m. He was treated by Dr. Kumudha Rani, PW-7. Mention of the incident found place in the accident register (Exhibit P-14). The deceased was referred to the Government Hospital, Salem for further treatment by PW-7, upon taking into consideration the seriousness of the injuries suffered by him. The Omalur Government Hospital at Salem was situated at a distance of about 23 kms. from the place of occurrence. The deceased was examined by Dr. G. Sundaramurthy, PW-8 at about 1.00 p.m. It is evidenced by the entries in the Accident Register which was marked as Exhibit P-15. However, the injured was taken to a private nursing home known as Shanmuga Nursing Home. It is also not in dispute that despite making entries in the accident registers both by the attending doctors at the Omalur Government Hospital as also Salem Government Hospital, the SHO of the concerned police station was not intimated thereabout. Dr. Murugavel, PW-9 examined Rangasamy. He, however, did not respond to the treatment. He expired at about 4.00 a.m. on 31.03.1997.
4. PW-1 lodged a First Information Report at about 8.30 p.m. on 30.03.1997. The said First Information Report was recorded by PW-13 V. Shanmugham, Inspector of Police of Theevattippatti Police Station. It was registered as Crime Case No. 184 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On the death of Rangasamy, however, the charge was altered by PW-13 to Sections 147, 148, 452, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem report suggests that he died because of head injuries sustained by him.
5. At the outset, we may place on record that the Accused No. 1 absconded. He did not face trial. Accused No. 3 died during pendency of the trial and, thus, the case against him abated.
6. Before the Additional District and Sessions Court - cum - First Fast Track Court, Salem, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person. A large number of documents being Exhibits P-1 to P-32 were also marked. Material exhibits brought on record were marked as MOs 1 to 12. The learned Sessions Judge recorded a judgment of conviction against Accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 8. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 500/- was also imposed o
