LexMAHENDRAN versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
MAHENDRAN
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA , JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.141, 149, 302 and 326 – Statement of
PW1-son-in-law of one ‘M’, that on 12.03.94 while going to
Nangarari with his father, due to darkness they decided to stay at
his father-in-law’s house – He stated that his father-in-law shared
the dispute between him and the Caste Hindus – On 13.03.1994 at
about 7.30 AM, he heard noise when he and his father-in-law came
outside to see what happened – A-1 to A-9 were standing with stones
and aruvals (sickles) – A-1 poured the kerosene from tin container
and A-2 set fire to the hut of PW1’s father in law – PW1’s father-in-
law ran towards backside of the house – Accused hit on his head
with the sickle – PW1’s father-in-law died – 24 persons put on trial
– Trial court found the charges proved only against accused nos.1-
10 and 12-15, acquitting accused nos.11 and 16-24 – High Court
acquitted accused nos. 10 and 12-15 by granting them benefit of
doubt – On appeal by accused nos.1-9 (8 & 9 died during the
pendency of the appeal), held: Presence of the appellants were
disclosed in the FIR recorded soon after the occurrence – No reason
to hold that the accused-appellants have been implicated falsely –
Prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 clearly defined the role
of each of the appellants in the occurrence which took the life of
PW1’s father-in-law– Such statement is corroborated by PW5 (PW1’s
mother-in-law) – Active participation of all the appellants stands
proved on record – Both the Courts below found that the appellants
had common object in burning the hut of the deceased and also
attacking the deceased with aruvals (sickles) in view of the role of
the deceased in the affairs of Panchayat against caste Hindus –
Appellants other than A-1 and A-2 cannot be treated differently to
convict them for the offences u/s.326 r/w. s.149 IPC as all the
accused were part of the unlawful assembly which took the life of
PW1’s father-in-law in a murderous attack.
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 383
383
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.141 – Unlawful assembly – Common
Object of – Discussed.
Maxims –”falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” – Application of, in
India – Held: The maxim has no application in India – Entire
testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded only because, in
certain aspects, part of the statement has not been believed –
General principle of appreciation of evidence is that even if some
part of the evidence of witness is found to be false, the entire
testimony of the witness cannot be discarded – Witnesses – Evidence
of – General principle of appreciation.
Judgments/Orders – Interpretaion of – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The statement of PW1 was recorded at 8.45
AM by PW19-Police Inspector soon after the occurrence.
Lodging of the FIR by PW1 is supported by PW2 and PW3 who
have found that PW1 was already in Police Station lodging the
complaint. The testimony of PW19 regarding lodging of FIR at
8.45 AM is not discredited in the cross-examination. He denied
such suggestion and also the suggestion that the documents were
sent to the Court at 4.15 PM. The trial court and the High Court
have believed the prosecution version in this respect. PW1
disclosed the receipt of injuries on the body of his father-in-law
and denied the suggestion that he does not know how his father-
in-law was killed, how his father-in-law’s hut was set on fire and
he did not go to Neikuppai Village. In the re-examination, he
deposed that five sickles recovered were approximately 1ft in
length; some may be longer or shorter. Such statement of PW1
is corroborated by PW2 who is resident of same Village as that of
the deceased. He also deposed that houses of PW13 and one
Manickam are situated on the School street, one facing North
and the other facing South and at a distance of half a furlong. At
the time of incident Manickam’s house was locked and people
came running to Manickam’s house from PW13’s house. Similar
is the statement of PW3 that A-1 poured the kerosene from a tin
container on the roof of hut of the deceased and A-2 set ablaze
the hut. Even PW5-wife of the deceased also deposed that A-1
poured kerosene and A-2 lit the matchstick. She stated that there
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
were other twenty or thirty people standing arExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.