KRISHNAN AND ANR. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 28-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KRISHNAN AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STA TE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
JULY 28, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302134, 323 and 341/Criminal Trial: 
Murder-Plea of false implication of accused-Disbelieved by trial Court-
Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment-Affirmed by the High C 
Court-Held, Prompt lodging of FIR rules out any possibility of deliberation 
to falsely implicate any person-Code of Criminal Procedure, Section I 54. 
Principle of Joint liability-Held, Existence of common intention is to 
be the basis of liability-Prior concert and pre-arranged plan are the 
foundation of common intention to establish guilt-Since accused concerted D 
and committed the crime in furtherance of common intention of committing 
the murder of the deceased, all the accused are rightly held liable by the 
High Court for the same offence. 
Evidence Act, I 872: 
Medical evidence vis-a-vis ocular evidence-Variance between-Held: 
Since ocular evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, 
if any, is of no consequence-Medical opinion suggesting alternative 
possibilities is not considered as conclusive. 
E 
Testimony of eye-witnesses-Held: It must be carefully and independently F 
assessed and evaluated for its credibility-Evidence/statement must be tested 
for inherent consistency/inherent probability of the story for its cumulative 
evaluation. 
Words and Phrases: 
'dependent evidence', 'reasonable doubt', 'eyewitnesses account', 'test 
of credibility '-Meaning of. in the context of Evidence Act, I 872. 
Deceased, an unmarried woman, had developed intimacy with the 
husband of one of the accused. Other accused had warned and threatened the 
G 
n1 
H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A deceased several times to break the illicit relationship. The deceased had been 
reporting to Police every time she was threatened. On the fateful day, when 
the deceased along with her brother (PWI) was returning from her work 
place, the accused assaulted her and ran away. The matter was immediately 
reported to the Police by PWI. Police sent the deceased, in injured condition, 
B to hospital for treatment, where the deceased succumbed to her injuries. 
Investigation was completed by the Police. The case was committed to the Court 
of Sessions, which found the evidence of PWJ, brother of the deceased, reliable 
as against four of the accused and convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC 
and sentenced them to life imprisonment On appeal, High Court confirmed 
the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
c 
It was contended for the appellants that since statement of PWJ, as 
recorded at the Police Station while registering FIR appeared to be after 
calculated deliberation, sustaining conviction of the accused on the basis of 
such statement would be unsafe; that improvement was made in the FIR; that 
PWJ and other members of his family and not the appellants were the authors 
D of the crime; that the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence; 
and that the plea of alibi was wrongly discarded by the Courts below. 
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that Fm was lodged immediately 
after the incident; and that the statements of PWJ were partially corroborated 
by the evidence of PW2 and the evidence of PW2 was not discarded in its 
E entirety by the Trial Court 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The fact that the first information report was lodged almost 
immediately, rules out any possibility of deliberation to falsely implicate any 
F person. All the material particulars implicating the four appellants were given 
and recorded in the FIR. (778-H I 
1.2. The highly hypothetical imaginative story advanced by the defence 
to contend that PWI and his family members killed the deceased is too hollow 
G to be accepted. If that was really so, they would not have chosen the place and 
the time for doing so. There is no materiafto substantiate the plea. (779-B( 
1.3. The evidence of medical officers, PW7 and PWS, do not in any way 
run contrary to the ocular evidence. In any event, the ocular evidence being 
cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any, with the medical 
H evidence are not of any cons~quence. It would be erroneous to accord undue 
KRISHNAN v. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
773 
primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye- A 
witnesses' account which had to be tested inde

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