LexARUMUGAM versus STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1026 ARUMUGAM v. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2010) JULY 24, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 14 7, 148, 341 and 302 - C Prosecution under - Of six accused - Three eye-witnesses - Two of them turning hostile - Conviction of two of the accused - High Court acquitting one of the convicted accused while confirming conviction of appellant-accused - On appeal, held: Conviction justified - Evidence of sole eye-witness was D reliable - Delay in registering the FIR ·did not cause any serious dent in the prosecution case - The case of the prosecution that fatal injuries were caused by appel/ant- accused was supported by medical evidence and the ocular evidence of the eye-witness - The appellant-accused cannot E be treated at par with the other accused - In view of the fact that deceased was assaulted by the accused even prior to the incident s. 304 (Part-I/) is not applicable - There is no scope to alter the sentence. The appellant-accused was prosecuted with five F other accused for having caused death of one person. The prosecution case was that the accused persons assaulted the victim with the weapons called 'aruval'. PWs 1 to 3 were the eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-1 took the victim to the hospital. The victim informed the G doctor (PW 8) who had examined him that he was assaulted by six known persons. The victim died in the hospital. Case was registered u/ss. 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. Prosecution case was also that the accused had assaulted the deceased twelve days prior to the incident H 1026 ARUMUGAM v. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE 1027 when the deceased had escaped. During trial, the eye- A witnesses PWs 2 and 3 turned hostile. Trial court convicted appellant-accused and accused No. 6 and acquitted rest of the accused. High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused, while setting aside the conviction of accused No. 6. B In appeal to this court, appellant-accused contended that his conviction was not justified on the grounds there was delay is preferring the complaint and registration of FIR; that the injury Nos. 4 and 5 which were fatal for the C deceased, according to the doctor (PW 11), who had conducted post mortem, were not attributed to appellant- accused; that appellant was required to be treated at par with the acquitted accused; and that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the case would fall u/s. 304 (Part II) IPC. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The appeal does not merit any consideration. It is true that the whole case depends on E the evidence of PW-1, the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. It is also true that he is the brother of the deceased. It was not argued before this Court that since he is the brother of the deceased, his version is liable to be thrown out. [Para 7] [1033-F] Jaisy @ Jayaseelan v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police 2012 (1) SCC 529; "Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35 - relied on. F 2. Delay in registering the FIR does not cause any · G serious dent in the case of the prosecution. The trial Court dealt with this aspect in a detailed manner. Since the deceased was in a serious condition, it was quite apparent that PW-1 as his brother had to stay along with him in the hospital and as was expected, despite the H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A treatment given to the deceased, he died in the hospital around 2 O'Clock. The only other person who was available with him was his mother (PW-4). Having regard to the unfortunate occurrence to his deceased brother, he would have only concentrated in staying at the B hospital to support his mother and for taking required other steps to deal with the dead body of the deceased. Noting the sequence of events, from the time of the occurrence till the registration of the FIR, there is no substance in the plea of the appellant that there was delay c in the registration of the FIR. [Para 8] [1034-F-H; 1035-B- D] 3. It is not borne out by records that there was no evidence to connect the appellant to any of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The No. 1 injury as described D by PW-8 the doctor who attended on the deceased immediately after his admission to the hospital, was mentioned as an incised wound measuring 10 x 5 cm x bone deep over dorsal aspect of left
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.