Madras High Court
Sridhar vs State By Inspector Of Police on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
Crl.A.No.708 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 24.06.2024
Pronounced on 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.708 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.14399 of 2022
Sridhar ...Appellant
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police,
Chrompet Police Station,
Chengalpet District. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu made in S.C.N.No.398 of 2006 dated
10.09.2019 and acquit the appellant/accused-1 from the charges.
For Appellant : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.708 of 2019
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH,J.
Heard Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, along with 5
others, had a grudge against the deceased Ethiraj and his brother, since they
had been informing the Police about the mamool being collected by the
accused persons from the owners of the leather business at Chrompet. With
this motive, on 10.10.2002 at about 07.30 P.M., all the 6 accused had
trespassed into the cable television office of witness Ramesh Babu and with
an intention to murder Ethiraj and Ramesh Babu, had used deadly weapons
and inflicted several cut injuries on them. The injured witness Ramesh Babu
had given a complaint to the Police, which was initially registered in Crime
No.434/2002 for the offences under Sections 148, 324 and 307 IPC.
Thereafter, on 11.10.2002, the said Ethiraj had succumbed to injuries at
Government General Hospital, Chennai and the offences in Crime
No.434/2002 was altered to Sections 148, 324 and 302 IPC. On completion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the investigation, a final report came to be passed against all the 6 accused
of having committed the offences under Sections 148, 450, 307 and 302 IPC.
3. After perusal of the documentary evidences before it, the trial Court
had framed charges against A1 for the offences under Sections 148, 450, 307
and 302 IPC. When these charges were read over and explained to the
accused, he pleaded that he was “not guilty” of the charges. Pending the case
before the trial Court, the accused 2 to 6 had expired and hence, the criminal
charges against them were declared to have abated.
4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses
P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 35 documents Exs.P.1 to P.35, apart from the
material objections M.O.1 to M.O.10. No witness or documents were
marked on the side of the accused.
5. The evidences let in by the prosecution before the trial Court are as
follows:-
5.1. P.W.1, namely Ramesh Babu, is the brother of the deceased, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is also an injured eye witness. According to P.W.1, on 10.10.2002, at about
07.30 P.M., when he, along with his brother Ethiraj, were at the first floor of
the cable television office at No.15, G.H.Road, Chrompet, A1, along with 5
others, had come inside the office and by claiming that P.W.1 has been
informing the Police about the accused receiving mamool and attempted to
indulge in roadblock protest against the accused, A1 had inflicted cut
injuries above his right eyes. The other accused had also inflicted cut injuries
with knives. At that point of time, when his brother Ethiraj went to stop
them, A1, along with the other accused, had caused several cut injuries on
his head, neck and several other places. At that point of time, his employees,
Suresh (P.W.3) and Jagan (P.W.4) and his another brother, namely
Janakiraman, (P.W.2) had come inside, when all the accused ran away from
the scene. Thereafter, Ethiraj was taken to the Chrompet Hospital and in
another auto rickshaw, P.W.1 and his brother went to the same hospital. The
doctors at Chrompet Hospital had advised Ethiraj to be taken to the
Government General Hospital at Chennai and accordingly, he was shifted
there. P.W.1, along with P.W.2, had then given a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the
Police at 08.45 P.M. of 10.10.2002 by naming the 1st accused, since he knew
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him through the cable television business. P.W.2, however, succumbed to
injuries at about 12.40 A.M. on 11.10.2002. He also stated that on
30.10.2002, a test identification parade was conducted at the Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, where he had identified 3 of the accused. The knives used
by the accused were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2 through him.
5.2. P.W.2 is also the brother of the deceased, who had seen the
accused going to the cable television office on the upper floor, where the
deceased and P.W.1 were present and when he heard a loud commotion, he
rushed upstairs, when he saw A1 rushing out with a blood stained knife in
his hand. He then took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital at Chrompet,
where Dr.N.D.Kumari had issued the accident register (Ex.P.28).
5.3. Suresh (P.W.3) and Jagan (P.W.4) are the employees of the cable
television office run by the deceased and his brothers, who were the eye
witnesses to the occurrence. According to both of them, they had seen all the
accused going to the cable television office in the first floor, whom they
thought were customers of the business. When they heard a loud commotion
from the office, where the deceased and P.W.1 were present, they rushed to
the first floor, where they saw A1, inflicting injuries with a knife on both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased and P.W.1.
5.4. Prakashkumar (P.W5) and Gopal (P.W.6) are the witnesses to the
arrest and confession of A1 and A4. The admitted portion of the confession
statement of A4 was marked as Ex.P.2 and in the seizure mahazar as Ex.P.3.
The admitted portion of the confession statement of A1 was marked as
Ex.P.4 and in the seizure mahazar as Exs.P.5 and P.6.
5.5. P.W.7 is the Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted the test
identification parade at the Central Prison, Puzhal. The order of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpattu, permitting for test identification parade, was marked as
Ex.P.7. The requisition by the Investigating Officer for conducting test
identification parade was marked as Ex.P.8 and the proceedings of the
Judicial Magistrate on the test identification parade was marked as Ex.P.9.
5.6. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police, who had registered the FIR
(Ex.P.10) in Crime No.434/2002.
5.7. P.W.9 is the Inspector of Police, who had conducted the initial
investigation. According to him, he had gone to the scene of occurrence on
10.10.2002 itself and prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.11) and an observation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mahazar (Ex.P.12). In the presence of the witnesses, he had then seized
mosaic floor pieces with blood stains (M.O.3 series), a knife cover (M.O.4)
and 5 pairs of chappals (M.O.5 series) under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.13).
When Ethiraj had died at Government General Hospital, Chennai, he had
filed an alteration report (Ex.P.14), by including the offence under Section
302 IPC. He had then conducted an inquest over the body of the deceased on
11.10.2002 and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P.15). Through a seizure
mahazar (Ex.P.16), he had seized two blood stained light green colour pant
and a red underwear (M.O.6 series). Thereafter, on receiving a secret
information on 17.10.2002, he had arrested A2 at 11 A.M., who had given
his voluntary confession. Based on the confession, he had recovered the
knife used by him under Ex.P.17. Under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.18), he had
seized the knife (M.O.1). He had then prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.19) of
the knife used by A2. He then recorded his confession statement, the
admitted portion of which are Exs.P.20 and P.21. He also identified the knife
(M.O.2) seized by him. The rough sketch of M.O.2 drawn by him was
marked as Ex.P.22. On 22.10.2002, he had arrested A3 and obtained his
confession statement, the admitted portion of which is marked as Ex.P.23.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Based on the confession, he had seized a knife under Ex.P.24, the sketch of
which is marked as Ex.P.25. He was thereafter transferred to Tambaram
Police Station on 26.11.2002.
5.8. P.W.10 is the doctor at Government General Hospital, Chennai, to
whom the deceased was initially brought on 10.10.2002 at 09.25 P.M. and he
had recorded the accident register (P.26). According to him, the deceased
was claimed to have been attacked by 4 known persons with knifes.
5.9. P.W.11 is the doctor, who had issued the wound certificate
(Ex.P.27) of the deceased, as well as P.W.1's accident register (Ex.P.28).
5.10. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the deceased, was
examined as P.W.12 and the postmortem certificate issued by him was
marked as Ex.P.29. As per the said certificate, the following injuries were
found in the body of the deceased.
“fha';fs;: 1) rpuha;g;g[ fha';fs; 6 x 3
br/kP mstpy; khh;gpYk;. 5 x 2 br/kP mstpy;
tyJ gf;f ,Lg;gpYk;. 3 x 2 br/kP mstpy;
,lJ njhs;gl;ilapYk; fhzg;gl;ld/
btl;Lf;fha';fs;:- xU rha;thd
btl;Lf;fhak; 6 x 0/5 br/kP x njhs;
Mhj;jpw;F tyJ KH';ifapy; Kl;oapd; fPH;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fhzg;gl;lJ/
xU rpd;d btl;Lf;fhak; 10 x 1 br/kP
mstpy; jir Mhj;jpw;F tyJifapy;
fhzg;gl;lJ. XU btl;Lf;fhak; 7 x 1 br/kP
x vYk;g[ Mhj;jpw;F tyJ njhs;gl;ilapd;
nky;ghfj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ. XU btl;Lf;fhak;
x 1 br/kP x vYk;g[ Mhj;jpw;F tyJ
njhs;gl;ilapd; KJF g[wj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
gy ePskhd rpuha;g;g[ fha';fs; 10 br/kP
mstpy; tyJ njhs;gl;ilapy; gpd; gf;fj;jpy;
fhzg;gl;lJ/ xU btl;Lf;fahk; 12 x 1
br/kP jir Mhj;jpw;F ,lJ KH';ifapy;
,lJ kzpf;fl;oy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
jiyapy; fhz;g;gl;l fha';fs;:- xU
br/kP ,lJ fd;Df;F nky; bew;wpapy;
fhzg;gl;lJ/ xU br';Fj;jhd ijay;
,lg;gl;;l btl;Lf;fhak; 11 br/kP ePsj;jpw;F
,lJ gf;f ,lJ fz; nky; 4 br/kP mstpy;
fhzg;gl;lJ/ xU rha;thd btl;Lf;fhak;
ijay; ,lg;gl;l 4 br/kP ePsj;jpw;F
jiyapy; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; tyJ fhJf;F
nky; 3 br/kP mstpy; fhzg;gl;ld/ xU
tise;j ijay; ,lg;gl;l btl;Lf;fhak; 13
br/kP ePsj;jpw;F jiyapy; gpd;gf;fj;jpy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fhzg;gl;lJ/
xU rpwpa btl;Lf;fhak; jiyapd;
tyJ gf;fj;jpy; 18 x 16 br/kP mst[f;F
fhzg;gl;lJ/ gy btl;Lf;fha';fs; Fwf;Fk;
beLf;Fkhf jiyapd; gpd; gf;fj;jpy;
fhzg;gl;ld/ mth; jiyia TW bra;J
ghh;j;jjpy; fghy Xl;Lf;F nky; cs;s
jpRf;fs; vy;yhk; rpfg;g[ epwj;jpy; jz;zPh;
nfhh;j;J fghyj;jpd; nky; cs;s vYk;g[fs;
vy;yhk; btl;lg;gl;L behW';fp fhzg;gl;lJ/”
5.11. P.W.13 is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the
statement of P.W.1, P.W.4 and two others on 10.01.2003, the statements of
which were marked as Ex.P.30.
5.12. P.W.14 is the Village Administrative Officer, who was a witness
to the confession statement of A2. Based on the confession, the knife used
by him was recovered under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P.18). The sketch of the
knife was marked as Ex.P.19.
5.13. The subsequent investigation was conducted by P.W.15 on
17.12.2002. He had recorded the confession statement of A5, the admitted
portion of which was marked as Ex.P.31. He had seizued a Yamaha two
wheeler (M.O.7), a Hero Honda two wheeler (M.O.8) under Ex.P.32. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
chemical analysis report (Ex.P.33) and the serology report (Ex.P.34) were
also marked by him. The requisition letter sent by him to the expert was
marked as Ex.P.35.
6. When A1 was questioned about the incriminating circumstances
from the evidences put forth by the prosecution under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., he had denied the circumstances and claimed that a false case has
been foisted against him.
7. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral evidences before it in
general and the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 in particular, who are
the eyewitnesses, as well as the documentary evidences, had come to the
conclusion that A1 was guilty of having committed the offences under
Sections 148, 450 and 302 IPC. Insofar as the charge for the offence under
Section 307 IPC is concerned, A1 was found guilty of having committed the
offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly, had acquitted him from the
charge of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, A1 was sentenced
to undergo the following imprisonment:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(a) For the offence under Section 148 IPC, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
which to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment;
(b) For the offence under Section 450 IPC, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of
which to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment;
(c) For the offence under Section 324 IPC, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
which to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment;
(d) For the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to undergo
2 years rigorous imprisonment.
All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of
remand already undergone by A1 was ordered to be set off under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
428 Cr.P.C.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A1 submitted that,
though the occurrence took place on 10.10.2002 at 07.30 P.M. and the FIR
was registered at 08.45 P.M. on the same day, it was belatedly sent to the
Judicial Magistrate's Court on 11.10.2002 at 10.30 A.M. only and hence, this
delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court would be fatal to the prosecution.
He further submitted that the overt act attributed to A1 with regard to the
infliction of injuries, does not match with the medical evidences and most of
the injuries found on the body of the deceased were not inflicted by A1, but
rather by all the other accused, whose cases stood abetted and therefore, the
trial Court ought not to have convicted A1. He also pointed out to certain
small discrepancies in the statements made by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and
submitted that in view of these contradictions, it is unsafe to place reliance
on their respective testimonies.
9. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that this is a case where the occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1, P.W.3 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.W.4, whose statements are cogent and the defence could not discredit any
of the statements of these eyewitnesses. He also submitted that P.W.1 is an
injured eye witness, whose testimony carries lot of weightage and also fixes
the presence of P.W.1 and the time of occurrence. In the absence of any
strong evidence to discredit his oral statements, the minor contradictions in
the investigation or in the statements made by the witnesses are not material
contradictions.
10. In this case, the prosecution have projected P.W.1, P.W.3 and
P.W.4 as eye witnesses to the incident that occurred on 10.10.2002 at 07.30
P.M. Among these three witnesses, P.W.1 was an injured eye witness. The
coherent statements of all these three witnesses is that on 10.10.2002 at
07.30 P.M., A1, along with five others, had entered the cable television
office belonging to the deceased and his brothers and by claiming that the
deceased had been an informer to the Police with regard to mamool being
collected by A1, had first inflicted two injuries on P.W.1 with a long knife
(M.O.1). Thereafter, when the deceased, who is the brother of P.W.1,
intervened, A1 inflicted a knife injury on the head of the deceased and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereafter, the other accused also had inflicted cut injuries on him on several
places.
11. P.W.1's statement, witnessing the occurrence in this regards, are as
follows:
“_jh; ifapy; fj;jpitj;jpUe;jhd;/
te;jt[lnd vd;id nghyp!;khl;oclhpaha;
khKy; vd;W brhy;jhahnk rhiy kwpay;
bra;J vd;id gpoj;J cs;s tf;fpw
ghf;fpwhah vd;W vd;id nfl;lhh; ehd;
mJkhjphp bra;fpw Ms; ,y;iy vd;W
brhy;y clnd fj;jp vLj;J vd;id tyJ
if njhs; gl;ilapy; btl;odhh;/ vd;Dila
tyJ fz; nky;gFjpapy; btl;odhd;/
////////////////
vd;Dila jk;gp ,ijg;ghh;j;J
fj;jpf;bfhz;l Xote;jhd;/ clnd _jh;
jk;gpia jiyapny fGj;jpnyna vd;
jk;gpia btl;odhd;/”
12. Likewise P.W.3 narrating the incident which he had witnessed in
the following manner:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“jpObud;W rj;jk;nfl;l clnd ehDk;.
b$fDk; khoapy; ngha; ghh;j;njhk;/ mg;nghJ
_jh; vd;gth; ifapy; fj;jpia bfhz;L
unkc& btl;l X';fpdhh;/ mth; jiyia
efh;j;jptplnt nc&hy;lhpy; btl;odhh; ve;j
nc&hy;lh; vd;W jw;nghJ "hgfkpy;iy/
unkc&f;F if/ kw;Wk; fhypy; mogl;lJ/
gpwF unkc&;d; jk;gp vj;jpuh$; mij Xodhd;/
_jh; Kjypy; mtnuhl jk;gpia khKy; !
;nlrdpy; brhy;ynghwpah vd;W _jh;
vj;jpuhi$ fGj;jpYk; btl;odhh;/”
13. So also, P.W.3 recollects his witness to the occurrence in the
following manner:
“ehd; nfgps; o/tp Mg;nul;lh; thrypy;
epd;wpUe;jnghJ rj;jk;nfl;lnghJ ehd; ngha;
ghh;j;njd;/ _jh; vd;gth; fj;jpahy; unkc&;
jiyapYk;. nrhy;lhpYk; btl;odhh;/ M$h;
vjphp jhd; _jh;/
////////////
_jh; kWgoa[k; vj;jpuhi$ jiyapy; 2
btl;L btl;oat[ld; gpd;g[ 4 ngUk; nrh;e;J
vj;jpuhi$ btl;odhh;fs;/”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. Apart from these three witnesses, P.W.2 was also present in the
ground portion of the building along with P.W.3 and P.W.4. According to
him when they heard loud commotion in the upper portion, they rushed
upstairs and he then went to the first floor of his office. At that time, he had
seen A1 coming out with a blood stained long knife, followed by the other
accused. When he had went inside he see the deceased lying in a pool of
blood. His narration about this is as follows:
“rk;gtj;jd;W ehDk; vd;Dila
,d;bdhU rnfhjuDk;. m';F nfgps;
elj;Jk; Mgprpf;F fPnH
ngrpf;bfhz;oUe;njhk;/ unkc&k;. vj;jpuh$;?k;
m';F ,Ue;jhh;fs;/ nfgps; o/tpapy; Rnuc&k;.
b$fDk; nkny ngrpf;bfhz;oUe;jhh;fs;/
jpObud;W Tr;ry; mjpfkhf nfl;lJ/ me;j
rj;jj;ij nfl;L eh';fs; XonghdnghJ
Kjypy; _jh; vd;gth; ,uj;jj;njhl xU
bghpa fj;jpia vLj;JXote;jhh;/ mth; gpd;
bjhlh;e;J 4. 5 ngh; kw;wth;fSk; fj;jp
itj;Jf;bfhz;L Xote;jhh;fs;/ mth;
md;iwajpdk; v';fis jhz;o Xoath;fs;
M$hpy; cs;shh;/ mjpy; KjyhtJ egh;
_jh;/”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. After the accused had left the scene of occurrence P.W.1 had taken
his brother who was alive at that point of time to Chromepet General
Hospital. Therein he was referred to the Government General Hospital,
Chennai, where he died at 12.30 A.M. on 11.10.2002.
16. On an overall appreciation of the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.3 and
P.W.4, it is clearly seen that when A1, along with others, had attacked the
deceased and P.W.1, all the three of them were present in the scene of
occurrence. When these three witnesses had narrated the incident in a cogent
manner, without any iota of contradiction, with regard to the manner in
which A1 had entered the room where the deceased and P.W.1 were present
and after accusing him of being an informer to the Police about the mamool
being collected by A1 from the leather manufacturers, he had first assaulted
P.W.1 on his right shoulder and on the top of his right eye with M.O.1.
Likewise, when the deceased intervened, he was also attacked by A1 on the
head and neck with the same weapon. Thereafter, all the other accused
joined him and inflicted cut and stab injuries indiscriminately on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased.
17. In a case where oral testimony is rendered by an injured eye
witness, the same has a greater evidential value than that of the regular eye
witnesses. In the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 719, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance on
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1994)
SCC (Cri.) 1694 and held that the deposition of the injured witness, should
be relied upon, unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence
on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his
presence on the scene stands established, in case it is proved that he suffered
the injury during the said incident.
18. Likewise, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Kishan Chand
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view was taken by holding that the
witness, who sustained injury at the time and place of occurrence, lends
support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence and
unless nothing can be elucidated to discard his testimony, it should be relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon. Following the aforesaid decisions, in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had held that the testimony of an injured witness should be placed in a
higher pedestal. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“30.The law on the point can be summarised to
the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is
accorded a special status in law. This is as a
consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is
an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and because the witness will not want to let his
actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely
implicate a third party for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness
should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds
for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
19. In a very recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Balu Sudam Khalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, the aforesaid principles were
summed up in the following manner:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness
is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles
enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in
mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time
and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless
there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it
must be believed that an injured witness would not
allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate
the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist,
their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted
on account of some embellishment in natural conduct
or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness,
then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment
should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but
not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version
must be taken into consideration and discrepancies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which normally creep due to loss of memory with
passage of time should be discarded.”
20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A1 attempted to
discredit the statement of P.W.1, by pointing out certain very minor
contradictions in his statement. According to us, these minor contradictions
cannot be termed as material facts, so as to ignore the other vital narrations
of the incident with regard to the attack caused by A1 on P.W.1, as well as on
the deceased. Thus, by applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the accused
could not discredit the evidence of the injured eye witness P.W.1.
21. Likewise, when the oral testimonies of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were
analysed, we find that from the major portion of the cogent and coherent
manner in which they had narrated the assault caused by A1 on P.W.1 and
the deceased, it establishes that both of them were present at the scene of
occurrence. We did find certain very minor contradictions between the
statements statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4. But, we cannot lose sight of the
fact that both these witnesses were the employees of the deceased and P.W.1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who were standing in the ground portion of the building and had rushed to
the scene of occurrence, after they had heard a loud commotion on the upper
portion of the building. When they had entered the room, both of them had
seen A1 attacking P.W.1 and thereafter, the deceased. Apparently, they would
have been in a great shock when such an occurrence took place wherein, six
persons armed with deadly weapons caused indiscriminate attack on their
owners and may not have recollected every minute overt acts of the accused.
22. What would be material in such a situation is, when certain major
contradictions like the weapons held by the accused or the overt act of who
attacked whom, are not cogently spoken to. In this case, both P.W.3 and
P.W.4 speak of the two injuries caused by A1 on P.W.1 on his right shoulder
and above the right eye with a long knife, as well as the subsequent knife
blow on the neck of the deceased. The statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 are
also corroborated by the statement of P.W.1, who was closely following
them to the scene of occurrence, when he had witnessed A1 and others
coming out of the room armed with blood stained deadly weapons. Thus, in
our considered view, the minor contradictions, which are found in the oral
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
testimonies of P.W.3 and P.W.4, may not be fatal to the case of the
prosecution, as held in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
including the case in Rammi Alias Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P. reported in
1999 8 SCC 649, wherein, it was held as follows:-
“24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it
is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies.
No true witness can possibly escape from making some
discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is
well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally
non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is
only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness
are so incompatible with the credibility of his version
that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But
too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations
falling in the narration of an incident (either as between
the evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic
approach for judicial scrutiny.
25. It is a common practice in trial courts to
make out contradictions from the previous statement of
a witness for confronting him during cross-examination.
Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No
doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope
for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an
inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the
section would indicate that all inconsistent statements
are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness.
The material portion of the section is extracted below:
“155.Impeaching credit of witness.—The credit
of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by
the adverse party, or, with the consent of the court, by
the party who calls him—
(1)-(2) * * *
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent
with any part of his evidence which is liable to be
contradicted;”
26. A former statement though seemingly
inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be
sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the
inconsistent statement which is liable to be
“contradicted” would affect the credit of the witness.
Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-
examiner to use any former statement of the witness,
but it cautions that if it is intended to “contradict” the
witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of the
Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the
previous statement of the witness (recorded under
Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose
i.e. to “contradict” the witness.”
23. The learned counsel appearing for A1 submitted that the injuries
found on the top of the deceased does not match with the statements made
by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 in their oral testimonies. When the oral testimony
of P.W.12, who is the doctor who had conducted the postmortem on the body
of the deceased was looked into, we find that apart from several other cut
injuries, there was a cut injury measuring 6 cms on the forehead on the top
of the left eye; a cut injury measuring 11 cms on top of the left eye; a cut
injury measuring 4 cms on top of the right ear; another cut injury measuring
13 cms behind the head and a long cut injury measuring 18x16 cms on the
right side of the head. This apart, P.W.12 also speaks about several cut
injuries on the back head of the deceased. Though, there is no specific injury
above the right eye, which is an overt act attributed by the eye witnesses on
A1, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the injuries spoken to by the doctor
found on the head of the deceased were several and the minute mis-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
description of the portion of the forehead where A1 had caused the cut
injuries, may not be material enough to totally discard his evidence.
24. In the case of Rameshji Amarsing Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1321, it was held that the doctor's
evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence and that the contradiction in the
number of injuries was not fatal to the prosecution's case.
25. In view of the consistent statement of the eye witnesses with
regard to the attack caused by A1 and others on the deceased and P.W.1 and
also their narration of the post-occurrence events of witnessing the accused
leaving the scene of occurrence and thereafter, the deceased being taken to
the Chromepet General Hospital by P.W.1 and his brother, who was again
referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai, where he died, we hold
that the cogent and coherent narration of these three witnesses can be safely
relied upon, which exercise the Trial Court had undertaken and found A1
guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that though
the FIR was registered on 10.10.2002 at 08.45 P.M., it was sent to the
Judicial Magistrate's Court only at 10.30 A.M. on 11.10.2002 and hence, the
delay would be fatal to the prosecution's case. When the FIR (Ex.P.10) was
registered, the offence, among others, for which the accused was charged,
was under Section 307 IPC, in which A1's name was found. Thereafter,
during the commencement of the Judicial Magistrate Court's working hours,
the FIR was received at 10.30 A.M. The intervening night hours alone has
been projected as an inordinate and unexplained delay by the defence.
Between 08.45 P.M. of 10.10.2002 and 10.30 A.M. of the next day, it cannot
be said to be an inordinate delay, more particularly, due to the intervening
night hours. Moreover, the prosecution has produced several other
evidences, including the statement of three eye witnesses, for establishing
their presence in the scene of occurrence. It would be highly reprehensible if
the trial Court was to throw out the evidence of these ocular witnesses,
merely because there was an alleged unexplained delay. Thus, the ground of
delay of despatching the FIR to the Court, taken by the learned counsel for
the appellant, does not deserve consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chotkau Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 6 SCC 742, the
effect of delay in transmitting the FIR to the Court was dealt with in detail.
Therein, reliance was placed in the case of Bhajan Singh Alias Harbhajan
Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 421,
wherein it was held that every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate
would not necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged
at the time stated and would not be fatal, unless prejudice to the accused is
shown. With such a reference to Bhajan Singh's case (supra), it was held
that while every delay in forwarding the FIR may not be fatal to the case of
the prosecution, Courts may be duty bound to see the effect of delay on the
investigation and even the creditworthiness of the investigation. In the same
judgment, reliance was placed on the case of Balram Singh and Another
Vs. State of Punjab reported (2003) 11 SCC 286 and took into account the
observations therein that, while considering the complaint with regard to the
delay in FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Court will have to
bear in mind the creditworthiness of the ocular witness adduced by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prosecution and when such ocular witness is worthy of acceptance, the
limitation of delay in sending the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate
by itself would not weaken the prosecution's case.
28. The first accused is previously known to P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4
during the course of the Cable TV business activities, as spoken to by them
and is not claimed to be stranger to them. In the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by
P.W.1 on 10.10.2002, he had specifically referred the name of A1 of having
attacked P.W.1 and the deceased. During the course of investigation, a test
identification parade was conducted, wherein P.W.1 had identified A1. This
apart, even during the time of trial, all the three witnesses have identified A1
and affirmed that he had caused the attack. Thus, the identity of the accused
stands well established in this case. P.W.2, who had also accompanied P.W.1,
when giving the complaint, had named A1, since he knew him through the
Cable Television business. On an overall appreciation of these oral
statements, it cannot be safely concluded that the identity of A1 was well
established before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29. Though, motive may not be a necessary ingredient to be
established in a case of ocular evidence, the prosecution has put forth the
theory that A1 had a grudge against the deceased, since it was alleged that he
had been an informant to the Police on the activities of A1 receiving
'mamool' from the leather manufacturers. At the time of occurrence, A1 is
said to have attacked the deceased, holding him responsible for passing on
the information to the Police about his demand of mamool activities. This
aspect was spoken about by all the eye witnesses and the defence was not
able to discredit such statements. Hence, we have no hesitation to come to
the conclusion that owing to the grudge A1 had against the deceased in this
regard, he had caused his death.
30. The Trial Court had analysed the oral testimonies of all the eye
witnesses, as well as the medical evidences and has come to the irresistible
conclusion of establishing the guilt of A1. We do not find any infirmities in
such findings of the Trial Court.
31. Accordingly there are no merits in the grounds raised in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal and hence, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R.,J.] [S.M.,J.]
02.08.2024
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Chrompet Police Station,
Chengalpet District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
