1. Murder and arson — Conviction under Sections 148, 435 read with 149, and 302 read with 149 IPC — Appeal against confirmation of life imprisonment. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1176
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
PALANI – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2009
Decided On : 27-11-2018
IMPORTANT POINTS
In case of variance in ocular and medical evidence ocular evidence will prevail, more so when medical evidence is not inconsistent with the probability of the case.
Criminal antecedent of witness is not material.
Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if the delay is plausibly explained.
Delay can be condoned if there is no motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Existence or non-existence, sufficiency or insufficiency of motive looses significance in case the prosecution case is based on evidence of eye witnesses.
Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – In case of variance in ocular and medical evidence – Ocular evidence will prevail – More so when medical evidence is not inconsistent with the probability of the case. (Para 14)
(1999) 5 SCC 96 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Criminal antecedent of witness – Not material. (Para 15)
(c) Criminal trial – Delay in lodging FIR – Not fatal if delay plausibly explained – Moreover, delay can be condoned if there is no motive to falsely implicate the accused. (Para 17, 18)
(d) Criminal trial – Motive – Prosecution case based on evidence of eye witnesses – Existence or non-existence, sufficiency or insufficiency of motive looses significance. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted under Section 148 IPC, Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment.
The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no good reason to interfere.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Credibility of sole eye-witness — Visibility of overt acts — Delay in registration and dispatch of FIR — Insufficiency of motive — Criminal antecedents of prosecution witnesses. (Para 6 , 19 , 21 )
3. Eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence — Reasonable explanation for FIR delay — Motive irrelevant where direct evidence is cogent — Primacy of ocular evidence over opinionative medical evidence. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 20 )
4. Ocular evidence takes primacy over opinionative medical evidence unless inconsistent with probability — Delay in FIR is condonable if witness has no motive for false implication. (Para 14 , 18 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed — Appellant directed to surrender. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. How does the court treat contradictions between ocular and medical evidence in criminal trials?
Oral evidence is given primacy because medical evidence is essentially opinionative. The testimony of an eye-witness is not discarded due to inconsistencies unless the medical opinion is logically inconsistent with the probability of the case. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. When can a delay in lodging a First Information Report (FIR) be condoned by the court?
Delay is condonable if it is inevitable or reasonably explained, particularly in cases where the witness has no motive to falsely implicate the accused or has suffered significant shock from the incident. (Para 16 , 18 )
8. Is the proof of motive essential for conviction when the prosecution relies on eye-witness testimony?
No. While motive serves as corroborative evidence, its absence or insufficiency is immaterial when the evidence provided by eye-witnesses is clear, cogent, and reliable. (Para 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007 in and by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein thereby confirming his conviction under Section 148 IPC, Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial court.
2. Kamala (PW-1) is mother of deceased Sankar and Iyyappan (PW-2). Vijayalakshmi is the wife of PW-2 and Abbas (PW-3) is brother of PW-1. The genealogy of the deceased party is as under:-
Kamala (PW-1-Complainant)
Abbas (PW-3) Maternal Uncle of deceased
Sankar (Deceased) Son of PW-1
Iyyappan (PW-2) Son of PW-1
Vijayalakshmi Wife of PW-2 and elder daughter of A8
Case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.1996 at about 05.00-05.30 PM, Kamala (PW-1), mother of deceased Sankar, Iyappan (PW-2), brother of deceased and Abbas (PW-3), maternal uncle of deceased went in an auto to Harikesavanallur to see the child of PW-2 who was born on 15.08.1996. Deceased Sankar along with Abbas (PW3) followed them on a motor cycle. When they reached near Pilaiyar temple in Harikesavanallur, eight accused persons Balakrishnan (A1) having aruval, Subramanian (A2) having aruval, Jenakaran (A3) having knife, Mari @ Mariappan (A4) having knife, Raja (A5) having knife, Kasi (A6) having aruval, appellant/accused Palani (A7) having aruval and Jayalakshmi (A8) (since dead) having match box surrounded the deceased Sankar. On exhortation by accused Jayalakshmi, accused Mari @ Mariappan stabbed deceased Sankar from the back and accused Jayalakshmi threw a lighted match stick into the petrol tank of the bike of deceased Sankar and burn it into fire. On seeing this, Kamala (PW-1), deceased Sankar and Abbas (PW-3) ran in various directions. Kamala (PW-1) followed her son deceased Sankar. All the accused followed them. When they reached near the field, all the accused surrounded Sankar and accused Balakrishnan cut the deceased on the right shoulder and left neck with aruval; accused Jenakaran, Mari @ Mariappan and Raja stabbed the deceased with knives; accused Kasi and appellant/accused Palani cut deceased Sankar with aruval. Profusely bleedings, deceased Sankar fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, Kamala (PW-1) went to Veeravanallur Police Station at about 08.00 PM and narrated the whole incident and lodged the complaint (Ex.-P1) with Ramaiah, Sub-Inspector (PW-11). On receipt of the complaint (Ex.-P1), Sub-Inspector (PW11) registered the FIR (Ex.-P11) under Sections 147, 148, 435, 341 and 302 IPC in Crime No.150 of 1996 against all the accused.
3. Dr. Ulagammal (PW-7) conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Sankar and after noting multiple injuries, issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.-P6) opining that the death was caused due to shock haemorrahage and multiple injuries. On 04.09.1996, Investigating Officer made application to the court and took accused No.2, 4, 5 and 6 from judicial custody to police custody. Based on the disclosure statements of A2, A4, A5 and A6, the weapons – aruvals of different size (bill hooks) and knives (MO-17 to MO-20) were seized under Exts. P26 to P30 from various places pointed out by the above accused.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses (PWs 1 to 13) and exhibited thirty three documents (Ex.P1 to P33) and twenty material objects (MOs 1 to 20). The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and the accused denied all of them.
5. Upon consideration of evidence of eye-witness Kamala (PW1) supported by medical evidence and other evidence, the trial court convicted all the accused under Sections 148, Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo imprisonment for life
