GANAPATHI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 27-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
GANAPATHI & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of 2008)
MARCH 27, 2018
[N.V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302 and 302/34 – Marriage between
M and accused no. 4 – However, strained relations between the
couple and their families – After a month, accused no. 4 left her
matrimonial home, due to grudge between the other accused
persons-brothers of A-4, and M and his sister – Thereafter, accused
no. 1, 2 and 3 armed with deadly weapons attacked M – Accused
no. 1 instigated accused no. 2 and 3 who inflicted injuries on M
resulting in his death – Father and brother of M witnessed the
occurrence – On the same day accused no. 3, 2 and 4 attacked the
sister of deceased in presence of her ten year old daughter –
Conviction of accused no. 1 u/s. 302/34, accused no. 2 and 3 u/s.
302 (two counts) and accused no. 4 u/s. 302 and sentenced
accordingly – High Court upheld conviction and sentence of accused
no. 2 to 4, however, acquitted accused no. 1 – Interference with –
Held: Not called for – View taken by the High Court in convicting
the accused whose guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be faulted – There is no error in appreciation of evidence or
any error of law in the judgment passed by the High Court – Motive
to commit the crime on the part of the accused is quite clear –
Evidence of ocular witness-father and brother of the deceased
narrates the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Non-
examination of independent witnesses and conviction on the basis
of the family members not fatal to the prosecution case – Further,
the evidence of ten year old girl has credibility and corroborates
with that of medical evidence – Evidence – Witness.
Evidence: Related witness – Credibility – Held: Related is not
equivalent to ‘interested’ - Relationship is not a factor to affect
credibility of a witness – Merely because the eye-witnesses are family
members their evidence cannot per se be discarded – When there is
allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established.
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The view taken by the High Court in convicting
the accused whose guilt has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt cannot be faulted. For all the reasons, that there is no error
in appreciation of evidence or any error of law in the judgment
passed by the High Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment
does not call for interference. [Para 18] [59-F-G]
2.1  The motive to commit the crime on the part of accused
is quite clear inasmuch as on the previous day of occurrence also,
the parties met at the police station and the accused had a heated
discussion with the victims and laid a challenge to finish both M
and his sister P.  [Para 11] [57-F]
2.2  The evidence of ocular witnesses, PWs 1 and 2, father
and brother of the deceased, clearly exhibits the way in which
the accused took away the life of deceased M. Their evidence
narrates the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
corroborates with that of the medical evidence. It appears that
there were two independent witnesses (PWs 5 and 6) projected
by the prosecution, but they have turned hostile. In several cases,
only the family members are present at the time of incident, then
the case of the prosecution will be based only on their evidence.
When their evidence is the only evidence available, Courts should
be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process
of trial and it cannot be said that the non-examination of
independent witnesses and conviction based on the evidence of
family members is fatal to the case of the prosecution. [Para 12]
[57-G-H; 58-A-C]
2.3 ‘Related’ is not equivalent to ‘interested’. A witness
may be called ‘interested’ only when he or she derives some
benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case,
or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a
natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the
circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. Merely
because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence
cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of
interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement
that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely
implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relations

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