IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right of private defence – Self-preservation is basic human instinct and is duly recognised by criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries.
(2) Evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The present appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 26th November 2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in Crl. A. (MD) No. 238 and 240 of 2014, which confirmed the judgment and order dated 31st July 2014 in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2005 passed by the Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli, vide which the present appellants, Periyasamy¹[Hereinafter ‘A-1’] and R. Manoharan²[Hereinafter ‘A-2’] were convicted in the following terms under the Indian Penal Code³[Hereinafter ‘IPC’]:

2. The incident in question relates to the death of two persons after being stabbed, allegedly by A-1 at the instigation of A-2. The prosecution case emerging from the record, as also set out by the Courts below, is as follows:-

2.1 On 3rd March 2002, Dharmalingam⁴[Hereinafter ‘D1’] had after already having procured liquor in an earlier completed transaction, half an hour later demanded more brandy on credit from the owners and workers of Saravana Wine Shop located in Neithalur Colony. A quarrel arose, and a showcase of the shop was smashed, and the bottles stored therein were damaged. In this course of events, it is alleged that D-1 retrieved a knife and stabbed one Thangavel⁵[Hereinafter ‘D2’] (one of the owners of the shop). A-1, with a knife, caused fatal injuries to D-1. He also stabbed Sakthivel (son of Muthuveeran) ⁶[Hereinafter ‘PW-1] in his stomach repeatedly. When D-2 intervened to prevent the attack, A-1 stabbed him. While the injured persons were being taken to hospital, on the way, both D-1 and D-2 succumbed to injuries.

2.2 Sakthivel, who was injured in the incident, reported it to A. Rajasekar (PW-20), a Police Inspector at the Hospital. Upon this statement, FIR no. 87/2002 came to be registered. Upon investigation on 1st July 2004, charges were framed against A-1 and A-2, as indicated in the above table.

Trial Court Findings

3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses; exhibited 33 documents and nine material objects. To repel the charges, the defence produced a solitary witness and three documents.

4. The Trial Court has relied on ocular and medical evidence to establish the charges against the accused persons. PW-1 and K. Sakthivel, son of Kaathaan⁷[Hereinafter ‘PW2’] (PW-2) both deposed that in the quarrel between the deceased and accused persons, though they tried to pacify the situation, A-2 handed a knife to A-1 with which the latter stabbed the deceased persons.

5. The Learned Trial Court found no substance in the challenge put forth by the defence attempting to shake the prosecution's case. A-1 was held guilty on two counts of Section 302, IPC, i.e., for the murder of D-1 and D-2; A-2 was held guilty on one count only, i.e., for abetting the murder of D-1.

6. The charges of attempt to murder were found to be proven against both A-1 and A-2. It relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 to hold that A-2 instigated A-1 to attack the deceased. The learned Trial Court observed that the injuries sustained by PW-1 and K. Sakthivel (PW-2) were of such a nature that the act of the accused would be termed as an act of attempt to murder.

High Court Findings

7. The High Court, in appeal, was faced with the question of the absence of the name of A-2 in the FIR. Having referred to certain decisions of this Court, it was observed that simply because the name was not mentioned in the FIR, an accused can not be absolved of liability for having committed the offence. The next question considered by the Court with respect to A-2 was his involvemen