IMPORTANT POINTS
Evidence of related and interested witnesses cannot be relied.
Materially inconsistent evidence cannot form basis for conviction.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Prosecution asserting that accused was arrested in presence of PWs 11 and 12 – High Court relying on prosecution witnesses to deny appellant’s plea of alibi – PWs 11 and 12 however denying their presence at the time of arrest – Arrest seriously doubtful – Local residents PWs 2, 3 and 4 turning hostile – Prosecution case resting on evidence of PWs 1 and 5, closely related to the accused-appellant – On inimical terms with appellant over property dispute – PWs 1 and 5 related and interested witnesses – Cannot be relied upon – Conviction not sustainable. (Para 14,
       (1976) 4 SCC 369; (2008) 16 SCC 73 – Relied upon
       (b) Criminal trial – Materially inconsistent evidence – Reasonable doubt exists – Cannot be basis for conviction. (Para 19, 22)
       Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2015 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant-accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC.
       High Court dismissed the appeal thereagainst.
       Finding of the Court:
       Conviction imposed upon the accused by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error of law and perversity of approach and deserves to be set aside.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. Ramana, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23rd January, 2015 passed by the Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 298 of 2013 whereby the High Court concurred with the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused against his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

3. Facts of the case in brief, as advanced by the prosecution, are that the appellant herein is a habitual drunkard and used to live opposite to his grandmother's house and always indulged in quarreling with her demanding money. The incident has taken place on 17th January, 2013 at about 6.30 p.m. The appellant was found strangulating the neck of his grandmother, namely, Mariyayee (deceased) with his hands. One Jayaraj-PW1 (son-in-law of the deceased), who was sleeping in the adjoining room, upon hearing the screams of the deceased, rushed to her and witnessed the crime being committed by the accused on his grandmother. The appellant then took surukupai (money bag) from the possession of the deceased and fled away from the spot.

4. Jayaraj-(PW 1) then hired an auto and took his mother-in-law to ABC hospital while informing about the incident to his wife Maruthayee (PW5) over phone, PW5 in turn also reached the hospital. The patient was admitted in the hospital at 7.30 p.m. and Dr. Mohammed Ghouse Khan (PW8) examined her and found that she was conscious but restless. However, Mariyayee had passed away at 7.55 p.m. Jayaraj (PW 1) lodged complaint at Srirangam Police Station at about 11.30 p.m. and basing on the same, Crime No. 22 of 2013 was registered against the appellant. PW15-Inspector of Police (Balusamy) sent the FIR (Ext.P12) to Court and inspected the place of occurrence. Subsequently, other formalities such as preparation of observation mahazar (Ext. P2), drawing of rough sketch (Ext. P13), holding of inquest were carried on and the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Meanwhile, the accused-appellant was taken into custody and after recording his confessional statement, police recovered surukupai (money bag) from his possession (M.O. 1).

5. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Mariyayee was conducted by Dr. RVS Renuga Devi (PW 9) who found linear abrasions of varying lengths and contusion on the front of neck, fracture of thyroid cartilage and tracheal rings, bruising of anterior chest wall, fracture of left collar bone and manubrium stemi transversely at the level of 4th rib attachment with surrounding area bruising. Doctor expressed her opinion that the deceased appears to have died of compression of neck and chest wound.

6. The appellant-accused denied the charge of committing the offence and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits. While so, the accused in his defence examined his mother-in-law, Mala as DW1 and marked no documents. There were however two material objects, one is the surukupai (money bag) and the other is an amount of Rs. 140/-, both have allegedly been recovered from the possession of the accused.

7. The trial court relying upon the evidences of prosecution witnesses, particularly PWs 1 and 5, came to the conclusion that often the accused used to quarrel with the deceased for fulfilling his demands of money and had the motive to commit the offence. In pursuance thereof, the accused came to the house of the deceased and strangulated her neck and then pushed her down, hence the deceased suffered asphyxia and injuries on her chest wall and ribs. It further held that medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased had died due to compression of neck and chest wounds. Therefore, the trial Court held that the trivial contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses will not affect the prosecution case and the appellant-accused was guilty of the offence of murder. The trial Court accordingly convicted the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 290

IMPORTANT POINTSEvidence of related and interested witnesses cannot be relied.Materially inconsistent evidence cannot form basis for conviction.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Evidence of related and interested witnesses cannot be relied.
Materially inconsistent evidence cannot form basis for conviction.