A conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness is impermissible if that testimony is deemed unreliable for co-accused in the same incident.

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 1 st November 2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 479 of 2017, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17 th November 2017 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi (hereinafter, “trial court”) was partly allowed . The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence qua the appellant insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) , 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter, “ IPC ”) but he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC .

3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as given below:

3.1 The genesis of the present case is the registration of FIR No. 224 of 2015 on 16 th May 2015 at Police Station Sathankulam, District Thoothukudi by one Mr. Kovilraj (PW- 1). Written information was received at the said Police Station at 02:30 hours alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 342 , 302 and 506(ii) IPC by the appellant, Rajarathinam and Albert. It is stated by PW-1 that he is a Church Member and Choir Master in Immanuel Church at Ananthapuram. He stated that he was in favour of Arputharaj in the Diocese Election, due to which the appellant, who supported the rival faction of Pushparaj entered into a wordy quarrel with his son (Praveen Kumar) about a year prior to the day of the incident. It is stated that the informant (PW-1), his wife Chandra and his son had gone to Ananthapuram for a Consecration Festival on 15 th May 2015. In the intervening night of 15-16 th May 2015, at around 00:30 hours, when the informant’s son was standing in front of the Church and chatting with his friends Praveen Immanuel (PW-2), Melvin Abraham (not examined) and Gerome (not examined), the three accused persons came and abused the informant’s son in a filthy language and questioned him as to how after working against them in the election, he could come and participate in the festival. It is stated that informant’s son had replied that they had no right to question him. Immediately thereafter, the appellant took out a knife , which he had hid in his hip (pocket), upon which, the informant’s son ran owing to escape. The informant’s son was chased by the three of them, however, he was caught by the accused persons. It is alleged that while the other two accused persons held the informant’s son, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck. The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, the FIR by PW-1.

3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was taken over by Vijaya Kumar (Inspector of Police) (PW-19). PW- 19 went to the scene of crime, he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P-18) and a rough sketch (Ex. P-19) and also recovered the material objects (M.O.-12 and M.O.-13) in the presence of witnesses. He, thereafter, proceeded to the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P-21). Based on the confession of the appellant, the knife (M.O.-1) was recovered by Nagarajan, Inspector of Police (PW-18), who had taken over part of the investigation in the absence of PW-19 for a short period. The statements of all the witnesses were recorded by PW-19 and after completion of investigation, on 17 th August 2015, the final report was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.

3.3 Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the trial court. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons. To bring home the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked 23 documents and 13 material objects. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. The trial court, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of