LexMUTTAICOSE @ SUBRAMANI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" [2017] 6 S.C.R. 325 MUTTAICOSE@ SUBRAMANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No.1206 of2010) JULY03,2017 [PRAFULLA C. PANT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Murder - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: appellant was armed with deadly weapon .and chased the victim-deceased and assaulted twice on his head - C All the eye witnes$,eS were injured witnesses and injuries on their person were proved - Though the eye witnesses were related to deceased, their evidence was credible - Moreove1; there was nothing· to show that deceased provoked the appellant - Concurrent findings of courts below regarding commission of offence u/s.302 by the appellant is, therefore, not interfered with. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1. In the instant case, incident is proved to have been occurred at 4.30 p.m. on 26.03.2004. On the same day, First Information Report has been lodged at 11.30 p.m. The distance E . between police station and place of incident is 6 kms. The informant who got injured in the incident, was first taken to the hospital. The delay in lodging F.I.R. was explained. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the prosecution story on the ground of alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report. [Paras 8, 10) [328-G ; 330-A] F Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others v. State of Bihar (2008) 12 SCC 173 : [2008] 7 SCR 714; Ravinder Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC 690 : [2001) 2 Suppl. SCR 463 - relied on. 2. As to the testimony of the related witnesses, all the four G eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 were injured eye witnesses, and injuries on their person were proved on the record. They cannot be simply disbelieved for the reason that they are related to informant. No doubt, the evidence of t~e interested or H 325 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A related witnesses is required to be scrutinized more carefully, but in the instant case, even after scrutinizing the testimony of the injured witnesses with caution, there is no reason to doubt their testimony. As to the motive or intention on the part of the A-2 to commit murder of the deceased what is important is that B the appellant (A-2) who was armed with the deadly weapon chased the deceased and assaulted twice on his head. All these facts taken together clearly showed that the culpable homicide amounted to murder. There was nothing on the record to show that the deceased gave any provocation to the appellant (A-~) to make him to assault the deceased. There is no sufficient reason C to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant (A-2) in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. [Paras 11, 12) [330-B-D] D Case Law Reference [2008) 7 SCR 714 relied on [2001) 2 Suppl. SCR 463 relied on Para9 Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of2010. E From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2009 of the High Court F of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of2007. V. Ganagraj, Sr. Adv., Mrs. N. Shoba, Sri RamAdhimoolam, Shilp Vinod: Shobha Ramamoorthy, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Nithya Srinivasan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court·was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 18.06.2009 passed by High Court of judicature G at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of2007, whereby conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, qua appellant Muttaicose@ Subramani in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C., is affirmed. 2. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers H on record. MUTTAICOSE@ SUBRAMANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 327 REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-I Sundaramurthy A (informant) is son of PW-2 Chidambaram and PW-3 Smt. Papathi. PW- 4 Yuvaraj and PW-12 Ramasamy are also related to the informant. They all belong to village Elavanatham. Accused Gurusamy (A-1) and PW-2 owned landed property adjacent to each other. There was a ridge between their land. Dispute arose between them over planting of coconut trees B on the common ridge by both sides. On 26.03.2004, at about 9.30 a.m. appellant (A-2) along with some other co-accused came to the house of the in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.