MANO versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 02-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I t 
A 
MANO 
v. 
,.__ 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
APRIL 2, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial: 
c 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 rlw S.34: 
Murder-Accused-appellant and three other accused persons armed 
with sharp edged weapons attacked the deceased in presence of his relatives-
Deceased succumbed to the injuries-Complaint/FIR-Charge-sheet-
"~ 
-Conviction-Testimony of relative/interested witnesses vis-a-vis conviction of 
D accused-Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a 
witness-A relative generally would not conceal the actual culprit and make 
a/legations against innocent person-Foundation has to be made if a plea 
of false implication is made-In such a case, the Court has to adopt a careful 
approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible-
Plea that the witness being a close witness should not be relied upon, has 
E no substance-Evidence Act, I 872. 
On the fateful day, at about 8.30 p.m., PWl and PW3, Uncles of the 
deceased were engaged in conversation near an electric post on the way to a 
graveyard, the deceased was also coming towards them. Suddenly, accused, 
Al armed with knife, accused Al, appellant armed with knife and other two 
F accused, A3 and A4 armed with a big stick and iron pipe respectively came 
from behind a thorny bush and began to attack the deceased. Consequently, 
the deceased sustained injuries and fell down. He was taken to a hospital, but 
on the way, he succumbed to injuries. PWI gave complaint to the Sub-Inspector 
of Police, PW12. On the basis of the complaint, PW12 registered a case under 
G Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, PW13, received FIR 
on the same day and took up the investigation. Later, the Police arrested all 
the four accused and recorded the confessional statement of Al and that of 
. .
A2 and recovered the knives. On completion of the investigation, the 
Investigation officer filed charge sheet again!.( all the i.ccused for committing 
\_ 
the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. the Trial 
H 
678 
MANO v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU 
679 
Court found the appellant and the three other accused guilty of offence A 
u/s.302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 
imprisonment for life. There were initially four accused persons. Only three 
of them i.e. Al, A2 and A3 filed appeal before the High Court which was 
dismissed by the impugned judgment. The present appeal is preferred by 
accused, Al. 
Appellant contended that the FIR which was treated to be information 
on the basis of which law was set into motion was not really first information 
report and there was another document anterior in point of time; that the two 
witnesses on whose evidence the Trial Court recorded the conviction i.e., PW 
B 
1 and PW 3, were related to the deceased and the version unfolded during C 
trial is highly unbelievable; that it is impossible that somebody would lie in 
hiding around 8.00 p.m. and would not attack in darkness and instead 
committed murder near a lamp post; that PWs 2, 4 and 6 did not support the 
prosecution version; and that the weapons were recovered long after and were 
not sent for chemical examination. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Neither before the Trial Court nor before the High Court any 
plea was taken about there being earlier report regarding alleged incidence. 
Therefore, it is not possible to accept the stand as presently urged. 
[Para 10] [683-B] E. 
2.1. In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the 
prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a 
witness. It is &.ore often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual 
culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation bas to 
be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to F 
adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent 
and credible. [Para 12) (683-D] 
Da/ip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli 
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar G 
v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614, relied on. 
2.2. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently 
being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, bas no substance. 
(Para 15] (684-Bl 
H 
1 
680 
SUPREME .GOURT REPORTS 
(2007] 4 S.C.R. 
~ 
~ 
A 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The

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