CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER versus STATE

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 22-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 772 
CHANDRASEK,AR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of2012) 
MAY22, 2017 
(L. NAGESWARA RAO AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 324 - Repeated assault by 
appellants on deceased's head with weapons resulting in his death 
- Witness also suffered injuries - Motive was acquittal of the 
deceased day before in a criminal prosecution at the behest of 
appellant - Conviction of appellants u/s. 302 and sentenced to life 
imprisonment-Appellant 'C' also convicted uls. 324 with six 111011ths 
rigorous imprisonment - Said order upheld by the High Court -
Jnte1ference with - Held: Not called for - Indiscriminate assault on 
deceased 's head, reflects the individual intention of each one of 
them to ensure the death of deceased -Number of injuries on the 
head of deceased sufficient to conclude the nature of murderous 
assault made by appellants - Thus, intention to cause death, 
alongwith motive stands established - Credibility and reliability of 
PW-1 as eye witness, established - Failure of the prosecution to 
place the first injwy report of the witness not fatal - Reliable ocular 
evidence available - PW-2 and PW-3 also eye-witnesses to 
occurrence, established. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellants came together armed at the place 
of occurrence in a car. Their utterances before a merciless assault 
primarily on the head, that acquittal by the Court would bring no 
succor to the deceased, reflects a state of preparedness and is 
an expression of the intention that they were determined to do 
away with the deceased. The intention to cause death, alongwith 
motive therefore stands established. (Para 8] [779-E-F] 
1.2 Criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the 
evidence of a person injured in the same occurrence as it 
presumes that he was speaking the truth unless shown otherwise. 
The number of injuries on the head of the deceased is sufficient 
772 
CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE 
to conclude the nature of murderous assault made by all the 
appellants. No suggestion was given to PW-1 that he was not 
present at the time of assault and that he was not injured in the 
same occurrence. It establishes his credibility and reliability as 
an eye witness speaking the truth. Since he was an eye witness 
to the assault which took place in broad daylight, and the number 
of injuries makes it evident that it continued for some time, there 
is nothing suspicious in his evidence when he describes the 
manner, nature and weapon of assault by the appellants. [Paras 9, 
10] [780-A-C] 
1.3 The failure of the prosecution to place the injury report 
of the witness from the Government Hospital, where he was first 
taken for treatment is a lacuna, but cannot be held to be fatal as 
to doubt the entire prosecution case or shake the credibility of 
the witness. It cannot lead to any conclusion of his injury report 
being fabricated. No such suggestion was made by the defence 
to PW-12-doctor. The appellants are named in the FIR registered 
soon after the occurrence. The fact that the witness may have 
stated of assault by two known persons to PW-12, without naming 
any of the appellants is inconsequential. The doctor was a 
prosecution witness for the limited purpose of the injury report 
and not a prosecution witness with regard to the occurrence. [Para 
11] [780-E-G] 
1.4 The fact that the witness may be related to the deceased 
by marriage, cannot be sufficient reason to classify him as a related 
and interested witness to reject his testimony. It may only call 
for greater scrutiny and caution in consideration of the same. 
The animosity of the appellants was primarily with the deceased 
on account of his acquittal the previous day, in the criminal 
prosecution. The transfer of lands by the deceased in favour of 
the witness, being a completed transaction, is considered too 
remote a circumstance for enmity between appellants and witness 
as a ground for false implication. In any event, because of the 
reliable ocular evidence available, motive loses much of its 
relevance. [Para 12] [781-C-E] 
1.5 The fact that PW-2 and PW-3 were also eye witnesses 
to the occurrence stands well established. PW-2 being the wife 
773 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
774 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
of the deceased, there is no reason why she would not be speaking 
the truth with regard. to the real assailants instead of shielding 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.