Important Points
1. The rule limiting the right to call evidence to contradict a witness on collateral issues excludes all evidence of facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal matter in dispute.
2. Evidence tendered through defence witness to show that prosecution witness was not at the scene of occurrence at the material time but at some other place, being not aimed at shaking the credit of the witness by injuring his character but it only affects the veracity of the testimony irrespective of his character, is not hit by Section 153 of Evidence Act and as such an admissible evidence.
3. Where in the broad spectrum of the case it is not possible to precisely measure the frontier up to which the right of private defence could have been stretched. The Court give judicial imprimatur to the plea of right of private defence advanced by the appellant and hold him not guilty of the offence of murder.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302 read with Section 100 —Appeal against conviction—Plea of right of private defence—Prosecution case that accused party in continuation of quarrel that took place in the morning of fateful day assaulted deceased party—Defence version that appellant accused slapped father of deceased in the morning and prosecution party attacked accused appellant in the afternoon—Accused himself sustained injury—Prosecution case not believable — Version of accused possible—Accused himself sustained injury and manner of sustaining injury recorded in accident record of hospital—No enquiry conducted by police—Explanation of prosecution about cause and manner of sustaining injury by accused not believable—Defence version that deceased was aggressor and accused acted in private defence probable—In broad spectrum of case it is not possible to precisely measure frontier up to which right of defence could have been stretched—Plea of private defence accepted—Conviction set aside. (Paras 25 to 32)
       (ii) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 153—Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity—Accused examined a witness in defence to prove that prosecution witness was not at scene of occurrence of crime but in some other place and executed sale receipt of his lorry—Whether such evidence legally admissible?—Yes—Evidence not aimed at shaking credit of witness by injuring his character—It affects veracity of testimony irrespective of his character.
       Held : The rule limiting the right to call evidence to contradict a witness on collateral issues excludes all evidence of facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal matter in dispute. (Para 20)
       But the above rule of prohibition has exceptions which can be discerned from the Section itself. Among the four illustrations enumerated in the Section one of them (illustration ‘C’) is relevant in this context which is extracted below:
       “A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Lahore. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Calcutta. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Lahore.”
       Thus when the issue is whether P.W. 3-Poosappan was present at the scene of occurrence evidence can be offered to show that at the very time he was at a different place. Evidence of that type is not aimed at shaking the credit of the witness by injuring his character. It affects the veracity of the testimony irrespective of his character. Looking at the evidence of D.W. 2-Devaki from the above perspective, it is admissible in evidence and hence the next question is whether it is a reliable item of evidence. (Paras 21, 22 & 23)

Judgment

Thomas, J.—Out of six persons arraigned before a Sessions Court for the murder of one Natarajan, one alone was convicted and the rest were acquitted. The High Court of Madras confirmed the conviction and sentence (imprisonment for life). His plea of right of private defence was denounced by the trial Court as well as the High Court. The said sole convict, Vijayan, is the appellant before us.

2. The 5th of October, 1984 was an eventful day for the rival factions one of which the appellants belongs to. A series of events took place on that day which ended up with the death of Natarajan at about 2.30 p.m. It gave rise to the present case.

3. Prosecution and the defence were in substantial agreement regarding the narrative of the events till the penultimate stage. But they differed grossly with each other regarding the final stage in which fatal injury was inflicted on the deceased to which he succumbed in a few minutes.

4. The following part of the story is, by and large, undisputed. Natarajan and his brother P.W. 1-Kandaswamy were residents of a place called Edayankattuvalasu in Erode town (Tamil Nadu). Their neighbour was Periyanna. He and his children were residing in adjacent houses. Appellant Vijayan is one of the sons of Pariyanna. All the houses of the above persons wee on the southern side of a road (Naisanur road) at Erode town.

5. P.W. 1-Kandaswamy and deceased Natarajan laid stone slabs over a drainage which passed through a private passage leading to the houses of all the above persons. Those stone slabs caused stagnation of water during rainy season and it affected Periyanna’s building. So his sons requested the other party to remove the stone slabs. But none of such requests was heeded to.

6. On the morning of 5.10.1984 appellant-Vijayan and his brothers forcibly removed those stone slabs. On coming to know of it P.W. 1-Kandswamy along with his brother Natarajan and father Kuppuswamy went to the house of Periyanna and questioned their act. It led to an altercation during which one belonging to the appellant’s faction slapped twice on the cheek of Kuppuswamy the father of P.W. 1 and deceased. As some neighbours intervened then P.W. 1-Kandaswamy and deceased went back to their house with Kuppuswamy. All those incidents happened before noon hours.

7. The above events are not in dispute, but as to what happened thereafter we have before us two diametrically divergent versions. According to the prosecution, the following incidents happened thereafter:

8. At about 2.30 p.m. the deceased Natarajan was walking along Nasianur road towards east. He was followed by P.W. 1 Kandaswamy, who was followed by his father-in-law P.W. 2-Chenniappan. As the deceased passed the house of Periyanna six assailants emerged out of that house armed with knives, spear and sickles etc. Sensing danger at the sight of the onrushing assailants Natarajan made a right-about-turn and scampered towards west but the assailants chased him and intercepted him and pushed him down. After he fell he was stabbed by the appellant with a knife on the back and also on the front chest. Appellant’s brother Thilakan (second accused in the case) aimed a blow with a spear on Natarajan bit it missed the target and fell on the crown of appellant’s head who also fell down. Deceased Natarajan who sustained a stab injury on the chest died at the spot.

9. The rival version, presented by the appellant, is the following:

At about 2.30 p.m. deceased Natarajan and his brother P.W. 1-Kandaswamy accompanied by a gang of others went to the house of Periyanna in retaliation for the forenoon incident. At the front portion of the house they attacked the appellant which was resisted, but still the appellant sustained injuries. It was then that appellant and others acted in self-defence.

10. In support of the prosecution version P.W. 1(Kandaswamy), P.W. 2 (Chenniappan) father-in-law of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 (Poosappan) were examined. They supported the case of the prosecutio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document