9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal and acquitted all the accused of all the charges. Arunachalam the brother of the deceased has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court after obtaining special leave from this Court on 26.7.1973. The special leave was granted against the first accused Sadhanantham only. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly, was that there was enmity between the deceased Soundarapandian and his brother Arunachalam (P.W. 2) and Natesan (P.W. 3) on one side and Rajapalavesmuthu Nadar, his sons A1 and A2 and his nephews A4 and A5 on the other. There were the usual disputes arising out of elections to the Gram Panchayat and to the local cooperative stores. In connection with the village Amman festival, P.W. 3 was arranging to have a dance performance on the night of 20th August, 1970, in the Gandhi Maidan. About a week earlier, Sadhanantham, the first accused demanded that the dance should be performed under his presidentship but P.W. 3 did not agree. On the night of 20th August, 1970, P.W. 3 along with one Gopala-krishnan (P.W. 6) was decorating the stage. Tube lights were burning and several persons had gathered in front of the stage. At about 8.45 p.m. accused 1 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The police after completing the investigation laid a charge-sheet against Sadhanantham, Nithiyanantham, Thamilan, Kumaresan and Karthi-keyan. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 as direct witnesses to the occurrence and relied upon Exhibits P 1 and P6, the two dying declarations made by Soundarapandian. The prosecution also examined P.W. 6 to speak to the earlier part of the incident. All the accused denied the offence and stated that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. In the cross-examination of the witnesses it was suggested that one Ramalingam was also injured at the same time and place. It was suggested that P.Ws. 2 and 3 had prevailed upon the deceased to name A-1 as the person who stabbed him. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the dying declarations as true. He also accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses. He convicted and sentenced the five accused as mentioned earlier. The High Court acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that neither the direct witnesses nor the dying declarations explained the serious injury caused to Ramalingam, who it appeared from the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 4, had received a sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track, or where the evidence accepted by the trial Court is rejected by the High Court after a perfunctory consideration, or where the baneful approach of the High Court has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored, or for any such adequate reason, this Court may feel obliged to step in to secure the interests of justice, to appease the judicial conscience, as it were. 5. A doubt has been raised about the competence of a private party, as distinguished from the State, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. We do not see any substance in the doubt. Appellate power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not to be confused with ordinary appellate power exercised by Appellate Courts and Appellate Tribunals under specific statutes. As we said earlier, it is a plenary power, 'exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law' to meet the pressing demands of justice (vide Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. [1955]1SCR267 Article 136 of the Constitution neither confers on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness and thereafter made to loom large. He was, as we shall presently point out nothing more than a red herring across the track. We will refer to the whole of the evidence where Ramalingam was made to appear in the case to examine whether the High Court was right in rejecting the entire case of the prosecution on the ground that the injury on Ramalingam was not explained. P.W. 1 was put but one question whether he was aware that injuries were caused to one Ramalingam Nadar at the place of the occurrence on the night of occurrence. He stated that he was not aware of that fact. No further question was put to P. W. 1 pursuing the matter. Similarly P.W. 2 was also asked in cross-examination whether he was aware of the stabbing of one Ramalingam Nadar at the time of occurrence. He stated that he was not and that was the end of the matter and it was not pursued further. P. W. 3 was also asked the same question. He too denied knowledge of injuries sustained by Ramalingam Nadar on the night of occurrence. P.W. 5 was also asked a similar question and he too gave a similar answer. P.W. 4 the Medical Officer, Kayalpattinam, deposed in his evidence that he examined one Ramalingam at about 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o his assailant was. There was, therefore, absolutely nothing to connect the stabbing of Ramalingam with the stabbing of the deceased Soundarapandian. The evidence; of P.W. 10 also was to the effect that Ramalingam himself was one of those who ran away from the scene along with him and that was before the deceased was stabbed. There was thus nothing to indicate that the deceased or any of the direct witnesses were aware or could possibly be aware of the injury caused to Ramalingam. In our opinion the High Court was entirely wrong and wholly unjustified in rejecting the testimony of the direct witnesses and the dying declarations on the irrelevant consideration that they did not explain the injury found on the person of Ramalingam. 7. In regard to the dying declarations the reason given by the High Court to conclude that Exhibit P. 1 must have been recorded later than Exhibit P-6 was that Exhibit P-1 contained several statements not to be found in Exhibit P-6. We are afraid that the High Court was merely indulging in speculation and approaching the question from the wrong end. Exhibit P-1 which was recorded by P.W. 14 was as follows: Arumuganeri is my native place. I am doing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be noted in Exhibit P-6 is that it refers to the circumstance that the deceased first went to the Police Station. That statement lends support to the prosecution case that the deceased and others went to the Police Station and a Statement was recorded at the Police Station from the deceased. What is more important is the circumstance that while Exhibit P-1 was recorded within a very short time after the occurrence, Exhibit P-6 was recorded a few hours after the occurrence by which time the condition of the deceased had apparently deteriorated and he was not in a position to make as detailed a statement as P-1. The evidence of the District Medical Officer, P.W. 8, shows that when he saw him at 1 a.m. the condition of the deceased was very bad. P-6 was recorded, it may be noted at 1.25 a.m.. It would also be seen that the condition of Soundarapandian at that time was such that his thumb impression and not his signature could be taken on Ex.P. 6. The reason for less particulars in P-6 was quite obvious but yet the High Court completely missed it because of its wrong approach. There was no reason whatsoever to doubt the genuineness of Exhibit P-1 or P-6. The High Court thought tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge thereafter. While he was on his way back he saw his uncle's jeep on the road and learnt from his uncle that Soundarapandian had been taken to the hospital at Tuticorin. Therefore, he went to Tuticorin and saw his brother in the hospital at about 1 a.m.. Thereafter he went to a hotel where he slept for the night. Next morning without going to the hospital to find out the condition of his brother he returned to the village and made himself available to the police for questioning at about 1 p.m. Though there cannot be any doubt that he witnessed the occurrence his subsequent conduct does not inspire such confidence as to place implicit reliance on his evidence. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that P.W. 3 was not a reliable witness. 10. In our view the two dying declarations Exhibits P-1 and P-6 may be relied upon without any reservation and the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 may also be safely accepted. We have considered the reasons given by the High Court for acquitting the first accused and we find them wholly unsatisfactory. In the light of the principled set out by us earlier we think that the interests of justice demand that we should interfere with the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
