LexGEORGE versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 769 : 2024 INSC 974 George v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 5279 of 2024) 13 December 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, 506(ii) and 302 – Prosecution case that the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1 – The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons – The High Court acquitted the two other accused persons, however, appellant was acquitted u/s.506(ii) IPC and his conviction u/ss.294(b), 341, and 302 IPC was sustained – Correctness: Held: While disbelieving the testimony of PW-1 qua accused Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the incident occurred 300 metres away from the Church and that could not have enabled PW-1 to have actually witnessed the overt act that is attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3 – However, the appellant herein involved in the same overt act has been convicted on the basis of the same testimony of PW-1 – In the instant case, PW-1 is the father of the deceased and is an interested witness – No doubt that merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot * Author 770 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness – However, the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection – When the High Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that PW-1 could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the conviction of accused No.1 on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises, is not permissible – As far as seizure of knife is concerned, the testimony of PW-18 would show that the recovery was made from an open place accessible to one and all – In the considered opinion of this Court, only on the basis of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could not have been based – Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and is directed to be released forthwith. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 17(iii)] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Murder; Acquital of accused and conviction of other accused on basis of same witness; Benefit of doubt; Interested witness; Basis of conjectures and surmises; Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; Sole testimony. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5279 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD No. 479 of 2017 Appearances for Parties S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Ms. D Durga Devi, Pranab Prakash, Advs. for the Appellant. N.R.Elango, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, V.M. Eshwar, Ms. Aswani Satheesh, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 12 S.C.R. 771 George v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 1st November 2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 479 of 2017, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17th November 2017 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi (hereinafter, “trial court”) was partly allowed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence qua the appellant insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) but he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC. 3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as given below: 3.1 The genesis of the present case is the registration of FIR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.