SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR,JJ.
Raju @ Balachandran & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1614 OF 2009
Decided On : 27-11-2012
(b) Criminal trial - Related witness and interested witness - Difference - "Related" and "interested" - Not equivalent - Witness will be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation - (Para 30)
(1981) 2 SCC 752 - Referred
AIR 1958 SC 500 - Relied upon
(c) Criminal Trial - Interested witness - Evidence of a related and interested witness should be scrutinized with great care - More so when such witness had enmity with the accused. (Para 34)
1954 SCR 145; (1964) 3 SCR 397 - Relied upon
(2011) 7 SCC 295; (1976) 4 SCC 369; (2010) 6 SCC 673; (2011) 4 SCC 262; (2005) 9 SCC 616; (2006) 10 SCC 163; (2011) 4 SCC 324; (2009) 9 SCC 719; (2009) 10 SCC 477 - Referred
Facts of the case:
Credibility of related and interested witness is under consideration in this case.
Finding of the Court:
Evidence of PW-5 even though he was related and interested as also had enmity with the accused is creditable.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :-
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The issue before us is whether the Trial Court and the High Court were both right in believing the testimony of PW-5 Srinivasan, a related and interested witness, that his brother Veerappan and his mother Marudayi were murdered by the appellants. Whether such an issue is of such public importance that it requires a decision from this Court is moot. But, be that as it may, we find no reason to disbelieve the witness and agree with both the Courts that his evidence should be accepted.
2. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants for having committed the murder of Veerappan and Marudayi.
The facts:
3. Appellant No. 1 (Raju @ Balachandran) is the father of appellant No. 2 (Rajkumar) and of appellant No. 3 (Sekar).
4. The case of the prosecution was that there was some enmity between the appellants and Veerappan relating to a ritual called “Mandu Vettal” performed before worshipping God in their village. The enmity dated back to about 4 or 5 years prior to the incident that we are concerned with.
5. On 4th May 2003 at about 5.30 a.m. Veerappan had gone to the tea shop of PW-7 Kamaraj and was returning along with PW-1 Thangavel and PW-5 Srinivasan (brother of Veerappan) who were following him. As Veerappan approached his house, the appellants stopped him in the middle of the road and attacked him. Raju dealt a sickle blow on his right leg below the knee. This was followed by sickle blows inflicted on his shoulder, neck and head by Raj Kumar and Sekar. Veerappan died instantaneously, his head having almost been severed from the body.
6. On hearing some shouting, Veerappan’s mother Marudayi came out of her house. When she saw what was happening, she came to rescue Veerappan and confront the appellants. At that time, Raju dealt her blows with his sickle on her neck, shoulder and head. Marudayi succumbed to her injuries a short while later en route to the hospital, where she was being taken by PW-5 Srinivasan.
7. A First Information Report (FIR) of the incident was lodged by PW-1 Thangavel and thereafter investigations were started by the police.
8. According to the prosecution PW-1 Thangavel and PW-5 Srinivasan were eye witnesses to the incident. Also, when the attack on Veerappan and Marudayi took place, PW-2 Smt. Thangammal (wife of Srinivasan), PW-3 Rajagopal and PW-4 Smt. T. Vasugi came out of their house and witnessed the incident.
9. The appellants fled away after attacking Veerappan and Marudayi. Later on they surrendered in the local Court. When the investigating officer came to know of this, he sought their custody by moving an application in the Court. He was granted custody of the appellants on 14th May 2003. According to the prosecution, their confessional statement led to the recovery of the sickles used in the attack on the deceased. The clothes worn by the appellants were also recovered.
10. On the conclusion of investigations, a challan was filed alleging that the appellants had murdered Veerappan and Marudayi. In Sessions Case No.76/2004 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tiruchirapally, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses while the defence examined two witnesses.
Decision of the Trial Court:
11. During the trial, PW-1 Thangavel, the author of the FIR, PW-3 Rajagopal and PW-4 Smt. Vasugi turned hostile. The Trial Judge was of the view that PW-2 Smt. Thangammal and PW-5 Srinivasan were eye witnesses and believed the testimony of PW-2 Smt. Thangammal (in part) and that of PW-5 Srinivasan (in full).
12. The Trial Judge held that PW-2 Smt. Thangammal generally stated that all the appellants caused injuries to the deceased without being specific. Consequently, her testimony relating to the sickle blows was not accepted.
13. As regards PW-5 Srinivasan, it was held that he was specific in saying that Raju injured Veerappan with a sickle on the right leg below the knee, while the other two
State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Darya Singh v. State of Punjab
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra
Prahlad Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Israr v. State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.