LexMOOKKIAH versus STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 2 S.C.R. 881 MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 2085 of 2008) JANUARY 04, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Prosecution under - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - Held: The C evidence of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence support the prosecution case - There was no delay in lodging FIR or dispatching the same to Magistrate Court - FSL report not doubtful - High Court rightly reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused. D Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - Power of High Court - Scope of - Held: High Court, as an appellate court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, entitled to re- E appreciate the entire evidence - Appeal. Witness - Related witness - Evidentiary value - Held: Merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be eschewed - However, it is duty of the court to analyze the same cautiously and scrutinize it with other corroborative evidence. F The appellants - A1 and A2 were prosecuted for having caused death of one person. The prosecution case was that A-2 harboured enemity against the deceased on account that the deceased had solicited his G wife to have illicit intercourse with him. A-1 also had previous enemity with the deceased. Both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased, attacked him and the deceased died on the 881 H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A spot. PWs 1, 4 and 5 were the eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-1 lodged the complaint. Trial Court acquitted both the accused. High Court reversed the acquittal order and convicted them u/s. 302/34 IPC. 8 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The trial court failed to take note of relevant aspects and committed a grave error in rejecting the reliable materials placed by the prosecution. The High Court as appellate court, analyzed the evidence as C provided in s. 378 Cr.P.C. and rightly reversed the order of acquittal and found A-1 and A-2 guilty of offence u/s. 302 r/w. s. 34 IPC for murdering the deceased in pursuance of their common intention. [Para 20] [898-A-C] o 1.2 There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1-complainant, who was the eye-witness. The trial court rejected his evidence because of his relationship. Merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be eschewed. On the other hand, it is the duty of the E court to analyze his evidence cautiously and scrutinize the same with other corroborative evidence. The High Court has rightly relied on his evidence. [Para 12] [893- B·C] 1.3 Though PW-4 turned hostile at one stage, there F is no reason to reject his entire evidence as unacceptable. It was he who accompanied PW-1 and noticed that the accused were attacking the deceased by· use of bill hooks. Even though he did not support the prosecution case in its entirety, his version strengthens G the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5. [Para 13] [893-D-E] 1.4 The evidence of PW-5 corroborates the statement made by PW-1 in all aspects. It shows that PWs 1, 4 and 5 noticed the accused causing fatal injuries on the H deceased by use of aruvals (billhooks). It also shows that MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 883 POLICE, TAMIL NADU all of them went to the Police Station and PW-1 made a A complaint and other two attested the contents thereof. The High Court has rightly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 5. [Para 15] [894-D-E] 1.5 The injuries observed by the doctor (PW2), who conducted post-mortem of the body of the deceased, tally with the narration given by PW-1 in the complaint as well B as in his evidence and the evidence of PW-5. The doctor's opinion that the death of the deceased might have occurred 28-3P hours prior to the post mortem also tallies with the prosecution version. The evidence of PWs C 1 and 5 coupled with the version in the complaint (Exh.P- 1) would state that the occurrence took place at 5.30 a.m. as such, the timings mentioned by the doctor, and other witnesses tally with the narration. [Para 17] [896-F-H] D 1.6 As regards the plea of dealy in filing the FIR, on perusal of the details placed by the prosecution, the High Court rightly observed that it cannot be presumed that there was inordinate delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate Court. Also in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.