LexMARANADU AND ANR. versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J.. [2008] 13 S.C.R. 487 MARANADU AND ANR. A v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2001) SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] ·Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 141, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 3071 Indian Explosive Act; S.9(b)(1)(b): c Unlawful assembly - Assault and murder - Conviction of six accused persons fo[ committing murder of deceased relying upon testimony of relative eye-witnesses - Correct- ness of-Held: Merely because eyewitnesses are family mem- bers!relatives of deceased, their evidence cannot per se be D discarded, if found cogent and credible - It would be unpragmatic to ignore the evidence of such natural witnesses - On facts, in the light of evidence of witnesses and in terms of settled law/principles set out by the Supreme Court in various decisions, trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the ac- E cused persons. 'Common Object' and 'Common intention' - Distinction between - Discuss.ed. '"i Words and Phrases: F 'Common Object' and 'Common intention' - Meaning of in the context of Ss. 141, 148 and 149 /PC. According to the Prosecution, on the fateful day, ac- cused persons six in number armed with deadly weap- G ons and also carrying bombs assembled unlawfully and attacked the deceased and others with the common in- tention of committing the murder and injured him. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. Police registered the 487 'H 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A case against the accused persons for committing the of- fences of assault, murder by forming unlawful assembly and for keeping explosives. Trial Court found the accused, including appellants A5 and AG guilty of committing the offences punishable u/ss. 147, 148, 302 r/w s. 149 IPC and B also U/s.307 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Ap- peals preferred thereagainst by appellants A5 and AG were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellants contended that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should not have been relied on because they C are interested witnesses being related to the deceased; that even if the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is accepted they cannot be related to the fatal injuries and the injuries were not caused to the deceased; and that A-5 i.e. appellant No.1 in the present case had only thrown a bomb at PW- D 2 who sustained injuries on his cheek and left chest and A-G i.e. appellant No.2 in the present appeal threw a bomb which did not explode; and that in the facts and circum- stances of the case, s.149 IPC has no application. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be dis- carded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being F relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely impli- cate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evi- dence which is otherwise cogent and credible. (Para - 7) (494-H; 495-A] 1.2 Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a G witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an in- nocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a· careful approach and analyse evidence to find out H whether it is cogent and credible. (Para - 7) (495-8 & C] "" MARANADU & ANR. v. STATE BY INSPECTOR 489 ~ OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) A SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (197 4) 3 SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP. AIR (1965) SC 202; ,.J State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and B Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404 and Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 699 - relied on. 1.3 The over insistence on witnesses having no rela- c tion with the victims often results in criminal justice going away. When any incident hap~ens in a dwelling house the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and in- ~ sist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing. D Merely on surmises the Court should not castigate a pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.