2014 (5) TMI 1214 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - appellants has submitted that the courts below have committed an error convicting the appellants on the evidence which has been totally disbelieved on the basis of which the other remaining 15 accused stood acquitted - material discrepancies in respect of the manner and number of injuries caused by the appellants to the deceased - HELD THAT - In the instant case, Malliga (PW.1), wife of deceased, in the FIR, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition in the court, had specifically named both the appellants. Even though, she had named other persons also. The appellants had been known to the said witness for a long time as they were closely related. There was sufficient light as per the evidence on record even otherwise there can be no difficulty to recognise so closely related persons even in darkness. The injuries found on the person of the deceased are duly supported by medical evidence as well as got corroborated by the deposition of Malliga (PW.1) - It has further been held by the trial court that the appellants herein came with Aruval and attacked the deceased indiscriminately causing injuries on the neck, chest and other parts of the body, though, inadvertently, the trial court has mentioned that the injuries found on all over the body, had caused the death. It is a settled legal proposition that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue could not be raised. Presence of light at the place of occurrence at the relevant time - HELD THAT - The trial court recorded the findings to the fact that there was sufficient light. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that admittedly there was light in the facet of the house and there was also street light illuminating the place of occurrence. Even in the observation Mahazar Ex.P-18, the light has been shown. The evidence of Kumareshan (PW.19), the wireman of Electricity Board, was examined to prove the fact that at the relevant point of time, the electricity was in supply at the place of occurrence. There is some discrepancy in the statement of Malliga (PW.1) in this regard but she might have not been able to give exact specific account being an illiterate village woman and as the appellants have not been strangers, there could be no difficulty for her to identify the appellants even in the darkness. It has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentencing.
2. Reliability of witness testimony, especially hostile witnesses.
3. Identification of accused in darkness.
4. Material discrepancies in the evidence.
5. Presence of light at the crime scene.
6. Promptness of FIR registration.
7. Medical evidence and injuries on the deceased and witnesses.
8. Acquittal of other accused based on the same evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sentencing:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, and in default, to undergo further RI for six months. The conviction was based on the evidence provided by Malliga (PW.1) and the medical reports corroborating the injuries inflicted by the appellants.

2. Reliability of Witness Testimony, Especially Hostile Witnesses:
Malliga (PW.1), the wife of the deceased, named both appellants in her FIR, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and court deposition. Despite being declared hostile, Paulmeli (PW.2) supported the prosecution's case against the appellants. The court emphasized that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto but can be accepted to the extent that it is found dependable.

3. Identification of Accused in Darkness:
The defense argued that it was impossible to identify the appellants due to complete darkness. However, the court found that there was sufficient light at the crime scene, and Malliga (PW.1) could identify the appellants as they were closely related. The presence of light was corroborated by the evidence of Kumareshan (PW.19), the wireman of the Electricity Board.

4. Material Discrepancies in the Evidence:
The appellants contended that there were material discrepancies in the manner and number of injuries caused. The court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case, especially when the medical evidence and witness testimonies are consistent with the nature of the injuries.

5. Presence of Light at the Crime Scene:
The trial court and the High Court both found that there was sufficient light at the crime scene. The evidence included the presence of a street light and light from the house's facet, as confirmed by the observation Mahazar Ex.P-18 and the testimony of Kumareshan (PW.19).

6. Promptness of FIR Registration:
The court found that the FIR was lodged promptly. The High Court detailed the sequence of events leading to the FIR's registration, including the actions of P.W.21 and P.W.14, and found the explanation for the timing convincing, thereby ruling out any delay.

7. Medical Evidence and Injuries on the Deceased and Witnesses:
Dr. Prakash Karath (PW.11) conducted the autopsy and detailed the extensive injuries on the deceased. Dr. Maheswaran (PW.22) treated the injured witnesses, Vijayasamy and Paulmeli (PW.2), and documented their injuries. The medical evidence was consistent with the attack described by the witnesses, supporting the prosecution's case.

8. Acquittal of Other Accused Based on the Same Evidence:
The defense argued that if 15 other accused were acquitted based on the same evidence, the appellants should also be acquitted. The court rejected this argument, stating that the evidence against the appellants was strong and credible. The court emphasized that minor embellishments or exaggerations in witness testimonies do not invalidate the core truth of the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, finding no merit in the appeal. The court ruled that the evidence, despite minor discrepancies, was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed.