CDJ Law Journals

(Prayer: This Criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction imposed in judgment dated 25.08.2023 made in S.C.No.52 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Ariyalur by allowing this criminal appeal and thus render justice.)

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 25.08.2023 made in S.C.No.52 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, A1 and A3/appellants have preferred this criminal appeal. The A1 and A3/appellants was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :



2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

                   2.1. PW1, PW2 and PW10 are the sons of the deceased, and accused 1 to 3 are their cousins. Enmity arose between the two families due to two primary factors: Illegal Liquor Complaint: Since A1 and A2 were involved in selling illegal liquor in front of a TASMAC shop, PW10 lodged a complaint to the District Collector, which resulted in the removal of encroachment by the Tahsildar Drainage Dispute: A dispute also arose when the witnesses' family started renovating and constructing their house, and mud blocked the drainage.

                   2.2. On 27.08.2015 at about 05.15 pm, while PW1 to PW4 were doing masonry work, A1 to A3 came on a motor cycle/M.O.2. A1 carrying M.O.1/sickle entered the house of the deceased where he was sleeping on the cot. A2 caught hold of the hands of the deceased. A3 caught hold of the legs, and A1 cut the deceased on the neck. Upon seeing the accused arriving on a bike, PW1 to PW4 rushed towards the house, but, by the time they reached, A1 already cut the deceased. A4 and A5 were guarding the house at the relevant time. On hearing the commotion, villagers gathered, A2 and A3 fled through the backyard, while A1 ran away with the weapon and threatened the witnesses. Thereafter, Ex.P1 was filed by PW1 before PW20.

                   2.3. PW20 received the complaint under Ex.P1, registered an FIR under Ex.P10, and forwarded the same to the Court and a copy to the Investigating Officer. PW9, a mason working at PW1's house and PW10 both saw A1 running with a blood-stained sickle at the relevant point of time. PW24 took up the case for investigation, went the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P12 and rough sketch Ex.P13 in the presence of PW5 and PW6 and seized MO2/motor vehicle along with other documents shattered found in front of house of the deceased. He also took photographs of motor vehicle and crime scene/M.O.2 series. Later he conducted the inquest over the dead body in the hospital and prepared Inquest Report under Ex.P14 and a requisition was issued for conducting autposy. PW23/Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital noted the following injuries:- External injuries:

                   1) Cut injury over the left side of neck of size 15x4x3 cm extending 2cm below left side of chin directed obliquely downward till front of Sterno- mastoid muscle, Edges are sharp with Clotted blood over the margine.

                   2) Underlying structures- Carotid vessels, Jugular vessels are cut, underlying muscles cut, Trachea was cut partially on its left side.

                   3) Cut injury over the little, Ring & middle finger level, partially amputated exposing bone and vessels and soft tissues.

                   and issued Ex.P11/Post mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organs- Haemorrhage shock. 2.4. PW24 in continuation of the investigation arrested the accused in the presence of PW7 and PW8 and recorded their confession. Admissible portion of confession of A1 and A2 are marked as Exs.P15 and P17. Pursuant to the same, he seized M.O.1 and blood stained dresses under M.O.9 to M.O.12 under Exs.P18, P22 to P24 and forwarded the seized items to the Court. The Scientific Officer issued Biological Report under Ex.P20 and Serelogy Report under Ex.P21. After examining the other witnesses and medical evidences, PW24 finally laid final report against the accused.

                   2.5. The trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, furnished copies of the prosecution documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the charges against the accused as under

Accused	Charges
A1	120(b), 449, 302, 506(ii) and 294(b) of IPC
A2 & A3	120(b), 449, 302 read with 115 of IPC
A4 & A5	120(b), 302 read with 34 of IPC

                   When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

                   2.6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.27 marked Exs.P1 to P24 and produced fourteen material objects M.O.1 to M.O.14. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances put against them, they denied the same. No defence witnesses were examined, nor any documents were marked on the side of the defence.

                   2.7. During the Trial, 2nd Accused died. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, by judgment dated 25.08.2023, convicted and sentenced the A1 and A3 as stated supra. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 3 have preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire prosecution is shrouded with serious doubt, and the prosecution has suppressed one version of the occurrence. The evidence of witnesses and Investigating Officer shows that A4 and A5 also suffered injuries and they were in the hospital for more than 10 days, yet particulars of the counter case were never produced before the Court. It is the further contention that the witnesses' evidence clearly shows that A4 and A5 were injured and lying in front of the house of the deceased and they were moved to the hospital only by the police. The FIR came to be registered only after the police visited the spot and conducted preliminary investigations, therefore, FIR does not arise out of Ex.P1. The occurrence could not have taken place as alleged inside the house. According to him, occurrence took place outside the house in some other manner and later dead body was taken and kept on the cot. According to him, if the deceased had been attacked with such a force by M.O.1 like weapon, blood would have oozed out and spilled onto the floor, but the investigating officer has not noted down any such spilling on the floor. Ex.P12/observation mahazar does not show any blood stain on the floor of the house, therefore, the entire evidence of PW1 – PW4 is highly doubtful since they already have serious motive against the accused. Furthermore, details of the counter case registered against the witnesses was also not produced before the Court. All these factors coupled with pre-existing enmity and failure to produce counter-case creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. Hence, seeks for allowing this criminal appeal.

4. Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 to A3 barged into the house of the deceased while the deceased was sleeping on the cot, and A1 had inflicted a fatal cut on the deceased's neck. Though PW1 – PW4 have specific overt act against other accused, even if their evidence may be disbelieved in certain aspect, their core evidence cannot be discarded in entirety. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and seeks for dismissal of the criminal appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that A3/second appellant died on 17.01.2025. Death Certificate of the second appellant is also produced. Consequently, the appeal survives only insofar as A1 alone.

7. PW1, PW2 and PW10 are the sons of the deceased, PW3 and PW4 are relatives, and PW9 is a mason working under PW1. The evidence of PW1-PW4 and PW10 when read in its entirety, clearly establishes the motive aspect projected by the prosecution. Though the motive is double-edged weapon, the fact remains that two families were not having cordial relationship and there existed enmity between them. It is the specific evidence of PW1 to PW4 that on 27.08.2015 at around 5.10 pm, A1 to A3 arrived on a motorcycle, and A1 carried a sickle and barged into the house of their father. Upon seeing A1 to A3 enter the house, PW1 to PW4 who were in a nearby house rushed to the spot. Even before they reached the spot, A1 cut the deceased's neck, while A2 and A3 held the hands and legs of the deceased, respectively. Their evidence further indicate that A4 and A5 were standing outside the house.

8. Though the entire evidence of PW1-PW4 show that A4 and A5 sustained injuries while escaping from the place, this version creates serious doubt. The cross examination of the witnesses, particularly, the Investigating Officer's evidence indicates that there is no wall, however, PW1 to PW4 have spoken that while climbing the wall in order to escape, A4 and A5 sustained injuries. Therefore, the explanation of the witnesses about the injuries sustained by A4 and A5 appears to be artificial in nature. Though the evidence of PW1 – PW4 and PW10 appears to be attached with some artificiality, PW9 who is a third party to the family has seen A1 running with a blood stained weapon immediately after the occurrence from the house of the deceased. There was no motive for PW9 to falsely implicate A1.

9. On a careful perusal of photographs and the medical evidence, the nature of the severe cut injury on the neck, which in fact had severed all neck veins including the Jugular veins makes it clear that only single cut injury has been caused; before receiving the fatal cut, the deceased also sustained a defensive injury while trying to ward off the attack. The nature of these injuries indicate that the assault was executed by a single person. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and PW10 about the A2 and A3 holding the deceased legs and hands is improbable. Though their evidence is attached with serious artificiality, the Court has to see whether the substratum of the prosecution case remains in-tact.

10. The overt act of A2 causing cut injury has been uniformly spoken by all the witnesses and is strongly corroborated by PW9, an independent witness who saw A1 running with a blood-stained weapon immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, merely because the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is disbelieved on certain aspects, their entire evidence with regard A1 causing cut injury cannot be disbelieved. The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot be applied to Indian conditions. In plethora of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the doctrine 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India. In the decision reported in Rajendra v. State of U.P. (AIR 2009 SC 2558) it was held as follows:

                   "It is now well settled that in India, the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application. Thus, only because she deviated from her statement made in the FIR in respect of Richhpal, her evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the submission of Mr.Sushil Kumar that on these grounds alone, we should reject the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.4. It is trite that a judgment of conviction can also be recorded on the basis of the statement made before the Court by a solitary witness, indisputably, for the said purpose, witness must be held to be trustworthy. The Court may, for the said purpose in given cases, make endeavour to find out corroboration in material particulars."

11. Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since no blood-stained materials were secured from the floor inside the house, the occurrence could not have been taken place inside the house; the occurrence must taken place outside the house which has been supported by the injuries sustained by A4 and A5. Of-course, in Observation Mahazar under Ex.P12, the Investigating Officer has not noted down the bloodstains on the floor of the house, but has clearly admitted in the evidence that blood had spilled onto the pillow on the cot. We have also perused the M.O.2 series (6 photos) which clearly shows that blood spilled onto the pillow. Therefore, mere absence of bloodstains on the floor does not negate the fact that the occurrence has taken place inside the house. The manner in which the dead body was found on the cot clearly shows that a single cut injury was inflicted on the left side alongside a defensive injury on the right hand. Thus, merely because the blood was spilled on the cot and not outside the cot, it cannot be said that no such occurrence has taken place. No doubt, A4 & A5 had also sustained injuries which has been admitted by the Investigating Officer and it appears that counter case is also filed and separately chargesheeted. Now, it is also stated that case is ended in acquittal. We are of the view that merely because the Investigating Officer has not placed materials regarding the other case and that case is already tried before the Court, the same will not dent the prosecution case in the given case. Minor omissions by the Investigating Officer in the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P12) or the existence of a separate counter-case/acquittal do not vitiate the entire prosecution as the material objects (M.O.2 series) establish the spot. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Suvarnamma and another made in 2015 (1) SCC 323. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

                   “11. It is also well settled that though the investigating agency is expected to be fair and efficient, any lapse on its part cannot per se be a ground to throw out the prosecution case when there is overwhelming evidence to prove the offence”

12. Though FIR is projected as arising out of Ex.P1, we are of the view that Ex.P1 cannot be treated as first information report for the simple reason that the evidences of PW1 to PW3 indicate that immediately after the occurrence, police came to the spot, saw the dead body, sent A4 and A5 to the hospital and the dead body was recovered from the place of occurrence, all these facts clearly show that FIR has been lodged with delay by PW1 after intervention of police at the scene. In our opinion, the complaint under Ex.P1 cannot be treated as the FIR in this case as it certainly would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and is hit by Section 162 CrPC.

13. Be that as it may, the substantive evidence of witnesses, particularly, the evidence of PW9 clearly shows that A1 was seen running with the blood-stained weapon immediately after the occurrence from the house of the deceased and the deceased dead body was found in the cot, these facts itself clearly proves the complicity of the A1. Therefore, merely because Ex.P1 was filed after police visited the scene does not erase the prosecution case. It is trite law that even if an initial complaint (Ex.P1) is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. due to prior police intervention at the scene, when the substantive and trustworthy testimony of independent witnesses (PW9) establishes substratum of the prosecution is in-tact, then their evidence itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

14. Since the complicity of A1 in causing death of the deceased has been clearly established by cogent substantive evidence, we are of the view that the Trial Court's judgment sentencing A1 to imprisonment for life warrants no interference. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as against A1/first appellant.

15. As A3/second appellant died pending the criminal appeal, appeal against A3 stands dismissed as abated. Consequently, the judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.08.2023 stands confirmed and the connected miscellaneous petition filed for suspension of sentence stands closed.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide