Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
State through the Inspector of Police – Appellant
Versus
Laly @ Manikandan and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1750-1751 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Acquittal by High Court – Merely because original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard deposition of eye witness – Similarly, assuming that recovery of weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit accused when there is direct evidence of eye witness – Recovery of weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non to convict accused – If there is direct evidence in form of eye witness, even in absence of recovery of weapon, accused can be convicted – Similarly, even in case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit accused when prosecution case is based upon deposition of eye witness – There can be conviction on the basis of deposition of sole eye witness if said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court acquitting accused for offences under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC quashed and set aside and judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting accused for offences under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC restored. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, at Madurai in Criminal Appeal Nos. 270/2017 and 362/2017, by which High Court has allowed the said appeals by acquitting respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC, State has preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Accused to surrender before the concerned Jail authorities/concerned Court to undergo sentence as imposed by trial Court, within a period of six weeks from today. If accused do not surrender with the time stipulated hereinabove, concerned Superintendent of Police/Court is directed to take the accused into custody to serve out the sentence.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of an eye witness (!) (!) . - There can be conviction on the basis of deposition of sole eye witness if the witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable (!) (!) . - Recovery of weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non to convict accused (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, at Madurai in Criminal Appeal Nos. 270/2017 and 362/2017, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeals by acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC, the State has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the respondents herein-original accused were tried for the aforesaid offences for having killed/committed the murder of deceased Saravanan. It was the prosecution case that owing to animosity between the friend of the accused viz. Selvakumar and one Periyavan @ Murugan, there was a murder of Selvakumar on 31.07.2013. Suspecting that the deceased Saravanan had informed the whereabouts of Selvakumar, the accused, on a two-wheeler armed with weapons obstructed the car in which the deceased, PW-1 and one another were travelling and dashed the car and broke the wind screen of the car with aruvals. A1 caused the injury on the right shoulder of the deceased. The deceased Saravanan tried to run away, however, the accused chased him and thereafter all the accused caused injuries on the deceased in the shed in which the deceased reached and due to the injuries suffered the deceased Saravanan died on the spot. The investigation started on the FIR being registered on the complaint tendered by one Mahendran. All the accused came to the arrested on 02.08.2013/17.08.2013. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the material evidence and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(2), 302 IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 254 of 2014. All the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore they came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences.
2.1 During the trial, prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 36 exhibits and 16 material objects. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, further statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. During the trial, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. However, believing the deposition of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6, the learned trial Court held the accused A1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A2 and A3 for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, three months simple imprisonment.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred the present appeals before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and consequently has acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences for which they were convicted. The High Court has acquitted the accused for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
“9. These appeals succeed for the following reasons:
(i) The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place at 01.30 p.m. on 31.07.2013 and the FIR was registered at 01.45 p.m. on the same day, on the complaint tendered by one Mahendran at the police station. The said Mahendran has not been examined.
(ii) The Prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-6 as eye-witnesses. While PWs. 2, 3 and 5 have not supported the prosecution and have been treated hostile, PW-4 and 6 have been disbelieved by the trial Court. PW-4 has been disbelieved as he informed that the occurrence took place at 2.30 p.m. and that the deceased fell down outside the thatched shed of PW-2, whereas the prosecution case is disbelieved
(1) Recovery of weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non to convict accused – If there is direct evidence in form of eye witness, even in absence of recovery of weapon, accused can ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction cannot be based solely on unreliable witness testimony, and previous enmity can be a ground for false implication. Additionally, la....
(1) Evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value.(2) Merely because witnesses were relatives of deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground that they were plante....
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If appellate court comes to conclusion that findings recorded by trial court are erroneous and contrary to law, it is always open for appellate court, by recording good....
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.(2) When there is a direct evidence i....
(1) A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify offence, cannot be treated as FIR.(2) What constitutes proof of common intention, may differ from situation to situation.
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance that don’t go to root of matter. Such contradictions are not material contradictions and evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed asid....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
