IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In appropriate cases, Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of Courts when assessment of evidence is vitiated by misreading of evidence - However, this should be done in rare and exceptional cases of manifest illegality.
(2) Murder - Only on the basis of recovery, accused cannot be convicted.
(3) Child witness - Court must be satisfied about capacity of minor to understand questions and answer the same.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 21st March 2019, of the High Court of Madras at Madurai. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the Accused Nos. 1 to 11 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The Accused Nos. 1 and 9 to 11 have also been convicted under Section 147 of the IPC, while Accused Nos. 2 to 8 have been convicted under Section 148 of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.

2. A First Information Report (for short, ‘the FIR’) was registered on 14th November 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against thirty accused persons on a complaint made by PW-1.

3. The prosecution's case is that the family members of Accused No. 1 had occupied the post of President of the Panchayat Board for approximately four decades. In the 2011 elections, the wife of PW-1 won the elections. The brother of PW-1 (Deceased No. 1) worked extremely hard during the elections. Both sides allegedly engaged in numerous skirmishes in the months following the elections. On the night of 14th November 2012, Deceased No. 1 (Kathiresan/brother of PW-1), along with his son Prasanna (Deceased No. 2) and daughter Nikila (PW-9), were travelling in a car driven by his driver (Deceased No. 3). At around 9:30 p.m., a truck came towards them from the opposite side. In an attempt to avoid a collision, Deceased No. 3 swerved the Scorpio car to the left, and the truck grazed the car. Deceased No. 3 stopped the car after being hit. At that time, Accused No. 1 and some others arrived by three motorbikes, while others jumped from the truck and approached the car. The group was armed with weapons and attacked the car and its inmates, and attempted to set them on fire. PW-1 managed to escape and hid in a nearby bush. The group attacked the three deceased to death and inflicted serious knife injuries to PW-9. When the group tried setting the car on fire, they spotted some men in police uniforms and fled the scene.

4. After this, PW-1 narrated the incident to PW-52 (Sub-Inspector) and PW-56 (Deputy Superintendent of Police). A written complaint filed by PW-1 led to the registration of the FIR mentioned above. During the investigation, thirty-six persons were arraigned as accused. Out of them, fifteen persons were dropped by the prosecution, and a chargesheet was filed against twenty-one persons. PW-1 gave his no objection to dropping the names of these fifteen persons. The prosecution also relied upon fingerprints lifted from the Scorpio car, which matched the fingerprints of Accused Nos. 2 and 3. PW-35, who prepared the fingerprint report, was examined as a witness. PW-46, who was a photographer and who took photographs of the fingerprints, was also examined. The prosecution has also stated that aruvals were recovered at the instance of Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. At the instance of Accused No. 5, a knife has been recovered. A wooden log was recovered at the instance of Accused No. 11. The prosecution has also placed reliance on paint flakes found in the Scorpio car that matched with that of the truck.

5. The Trial Court examined fifty-eight witnesses, out of which the material eye witnesses are PW-1(Krishnan) who is the informant, PW-2 (Loorthu Prabhu) who witnessed the incident with one Abdul Rahman, and PW-9 (Nikila) who is the minor daughter of PW-1 and sustained injuries.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Trial Court vide judgment dated 29th September 2015 convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 11 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Trial Court acquitted Accused Nos. 12 to 21 of all the charges. Against this judgment of the Trial Court, Accused Nos. 1 to 11 filed an appeal against their convict