2013 Supreme(SC) 853

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
Shanmugam and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1623 OF 2009
Decided On : 11-09-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872- Section 118- Appreciation of evidence of witnesses- The essence of any such appreciation is to determine whether the deposition of the witness on to the incident is truthful hence acceptable. While doing so, the Court can assume that a related witness would not ordinarily shield the real offender to falsely implicate an innocent person. In cases where the witness was inimically disposed towards the accused, the Courts have no doubt at times noticed a tendency to implicate an innocent person also, but before the Court can reject the deposition of such a witness the accused must lay a foundation for the argument that his false implication springs from such enmity. The mere fact that the witness was related to the accused does not provide that foundation. It may on the contrary be a circumstance for the Court to believe that the version of the witness is truthful on the simple logic that such a witness would not screen the real culprit to falsely implicate an innocent. Suffice it to say that the process of evaluation of evidence of witnesses whether they are partisan or interested (assuming there is a difference between the two) is to be undertaken in the facts of each case having regard to ordinary human conduct prejudices and predilections. (Para 10)

        Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC- Un-explained delay not only in the lodging of the first information report but also in dispatching a copy of the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate- Delay in the lodging of the FIR is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution nor can delay itself create any suspicion about the truthfulness of the version given by the informant just as a prompt lodging of the report may be no guarantee about its being wholly truthful. So long as there is cogent and acceptable explanation offered for the delay it loses its significance. Whether or not the explanation is acceptable will depend upon the facts of each case. There is no cut and dried formula for determining whether the explanation is or is not acceptable. (Para 7)

        Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302 and 304 Part II Difference--The manner in which the deceased was assaulted and the brutality of the assault shows that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased. The blow landed on the deceased by Perumal had brought the deceased to the ground whereupon the accused continued brutalising the deceased with the help of stones, in the process crushing his head and squeezing his testicles. We have no manner of doubt that the nature of injuries caused to the deceased were clearly indicative of the accused having had the intention of killing him. The use of the words "with that he must go" by appellant No.2 is only a manifestation of that intention. (Para 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        A person was murdered at around 3.00 p.m. on the 5th of January, 1999 in a village. The first information report about the same was lodged at 10.00 p.m. on the same day. It was contended that since the witness happened to be the brother of the deceased, he must be taken as a partisan witness on account of his close relation with the victim.

       Findings of the Court :

        The manner in which the deceased was assaulted and the brutality of the assault shows that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased. The blow landed on the deceased by Perumal had brought the deceased to the ground whereupon the accused continued brutalising the deceased with the help of stones, in the process crushing his head and squeezing his testicles. We have no manner of doubt that the nature of injuries caused to the deceased were clearly indicative of the accused having had the intention of killing him.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.