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

2017 Supreme(SC) 624

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
S. Subbulaxmi - Appellant
Versus
Kumarasamy & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 2007
Decided On : 06-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Mrs. Malavika J., Mr. C.K. Sasi, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not safe to convict an accused on the basis of evidence which is full of contradictions.

Headnote:Criminal trial – Evidence full of contradictions – Main witness PW1 not trustworthy – Questionable investigation – High Court rightly acquitted the accused. (Para 26, 27)

       (2016) 4 SCC 357; (1988) 2 SCC 95; (1988) Supp. SCC 241; AIR 1993 SC 2644; (2002) 7 SCC 317; (2014) 11 SCC 335 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The respondent was convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 34, 302 and 506(II) IPC. The order of conviction has been set aside by the High Court and the respondent has been acquitted.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment does not warrant interference.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT :

N.V. Ramana, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22nd March, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 1997, the appellant (complainant) filed the present appeal. By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court has set aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 34, 302 and 506(II) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and acquitted the accused.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal as discerned from the prosecution case are that the members of victim as well as accused groups are closely related to one another. S. Subbulaxmi who is the appellant/complainant is the wife of the deceased-Subramani. Respondent No 1 (A1) and Respondent No. 3 (A3) are husband and wife. Respondent No. 2 (A2) is the cousin brother of Respondent No.1 (A1). Respondent No. 3 (A3) is sister of the deceased-Subramani. Govindswamy (DW2) is the father of A1. An amount of Rs.40,000/- was handed over to the father of deceased at the time of marriage of appellant with the deceased and the same was deposited in a bank in the names of appellant and the deceased. The father of deceased wanted his son (deceased) and daughter-in-law (appellant) to lend an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of purchasing some agricultural land in the names of his son-in-law (A1) and his father (DW2). It appears that there was an oral agreement between the deceased and his father to the effect that in exchange of Rs.40,000/-, father of the deceased will transfer three acres of land to his son. After some time, the father of deceased, instead of transferring the promised three acres of land to his son, leased out the same to the father of A1, giving way to strained relations between the deceased and his brother-in-law (A1) which further aggravated when the deceased started cultivating paddy in the land leased out to the father of A1. Thus, it appears there was a dispute between the parties in respect of this piece of land.

3. In the evening hours of 15th September, 1994, the appellant while cutting grass in her field saw the respondents (A1 to A3) working in a nearby field who created a commotion by saying to each other that they are not going to spare the appellant’s husband Subramani (deceased) since he beat DW 2 (father of A1). Soon thereafter, respondent No. 1 (A1) left the field carrying an iron rod used for removing coconut husk, along with A2 and A3. Worried by their aggression, appellant/complainant herein followed them, on the way she met PWs 2 and 3 and all of them (Pws 1, 2 & 3) followed the accused party, and at the place of occurrence they saw DW2 sitting on the road and husband of the appellant (deceased) standing at some nearby place. On seeing the deceased, A1 ran towards him and attacked with the iron rod giving a blow on his head and stabbed on the left cheek. A2 and A3 also picked up some cart twigs and continuously attacked on the legs and hands of the deceased. After beating the deceased with iron rod and cart twigs, all the accused threw away their arms and left the scene of offence. After that, PW1 with the help of PW2, took her husband to the Government Hospital, Erode in a taxi where the Doctor (PW10) declared him dead, and informed police. Sub-Inspector of Chennimalai Police Station (PW9) visited hospital, recorded the statement of PW1 (Ext.P1) and registered the same as Crime No. 398/94. Meanwhile, one Ponnusamy (not examined) got admitted father of A1 (DW2) in the same Government Hospital at Erode. The same Doctor who had examined the deceased also examined DW2. Later on, PW9 recorded DW2’s statement and registered Crime No. 399/94 against the deceased and undertook investigation in both the cases. The inquest was conducted on the next day and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.

I.O. seized bloodstained iron rod, cart twigs, bloodstained and normal earth and recorded statements of the doctors. The accused were arrested on 17th September, 1994 from a b












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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