Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a murder case where the three appellants were tried by the Sessions Court, Madurai. The second appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the first and third appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Vellaikutty on 17 December 1976. The prosecution alleged long-standing enmity between the accused family and the deceased's family due to prior disputes and murders in the village. On the day of occurrence, the deceased and his son PW1 went to Nilakottai market and were returning on a cycle when the accused attacked the deceased near a culvert. PW1, PW2 and PW4 witnessed the assault; the accused inflicted multiple injuries with aruval and knife. The deceased died. The Sessions Judge acquitted all accused on 24 July 1977, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, mainly because the eyewitnesses were close relatives of the deceased. The State of Tamil Nadu appealed to the High Court under Section 378 CrPC, and the High Court reversed the acquittal on 5 February 1977 (as per judgment text), convicting A-2 under Section 302 IPC and A-1 and A-3 under Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. Their counsel argued that the trial court's judgment was reasonable and not perverse, and that the High Court should not have interfered with the acquittal. They challenged the credibility of PW1 (son, 16 years old) and PW2 (brother) as interested and chance witnesses, and contended that the accused would not have spared eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the trial court's acquittal was based on perverse reasoning because it discarded eyewitness evidence solely on the ground of relationship. The Court held that related witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on that basis if their evidence is credible. The Court noted corroboration from the seizure of purchased items during spot panchnama, the cycle shop owner's testimony, and the immediate report to the village munsiff naming the appellants. The doctor found eighteen ante-mortem incised and stab injuries, indicating a concerted attack. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants on bail were directed to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference by High Court Under Section 378 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - Trial court acquitted the accused but discarded eye-witness evidence solely on the ground that witnesses were close relatives of deceased; this was perverse reasoning. High Court was justified in reversing acquittal because the trial court view was not reasonable but based on no acceptable reason. Held that High Court's reversal was valid and appeal dismissed (Paras 12, 18). B) Evidence - Related Witnesses - Credibility of Interested Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The evidence of a related witness cannot be rejected merely because of relationship; it must be scrutinized for inherent credibility. PW1 (son, aged 16) and PW2 (brother) gave consistent accounts of the attack; cross-examination did not discredit them. Held that their evidence was credible and could form basis for conviction (Paras 12-14). C) Evidence - Corroboration - Circumstantial Corroboration of Ocular Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The seizure of kochai string, betel leaves and nut during spot panchnama, cycle shop owner's testimony about the accused and deceased visiting shop, and immediate report to village munsiff naming appellants corroborated the eyewitnesses. Held that such corroboration lent assurance to ocular evidence and strengthened prosecution case (Paras 14, 17). D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - A-1, A-2 and A-3 jointly attacked deceased with aruval and knife; doctor found eighteen ante-mortem incised and stab injuries, which could not be inflicted by single accused. Common intention to murder was established by concurrent acts and same object. Held that conviction of A-1 and A-3 under Section 302/34 IPC was valid; A-2 liable under Section 302 IPC (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court; whether the evidence of related eye witnesses (son and brother of deceased) could form the basis for conviction; whether common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was established.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the High Court's conviction of A-2 under Section 302 IPC and A-1 and A-3 under Section 302/34 IPC with life imprisonment. The appellants on bail were directed to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve the remaining period of their sentences.
Law Points
- Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on ground of relationship
- acquittal based on perverse reasoning can be reversed by High Court under Section 378 CrPC
- common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from concerted attack
- ocular evidence corroborated by recovery of purchased items and immediate report is credible.
