LexNAGAPPAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 99 NAGAPPAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of 2009) JULY 17, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder- On account A B of previous enmity - Four accused - Eye-witness account of PWs 1 and 3 - As per prosecution case, A-1 and A-2 were C armed with knives, A-4 was armed with iron rod whereas A-3 was holding a stick- Doctor (PW-10), who conducted the post mortem, asserted that the deceased died due to head injuries - Trial court convicted A-1 to A-4 uls. 302 r/w s.34 /PC - High Court confirmed the conviction - On appeal by A-3, held: PWs D 1 & 3 asserted that A-1 and A-2 caused cut injuries to the deceased using knives - But PWs 1 & 3 did not specifically state whether the stick used by the appellant (A-3) struck on the head or neck of the deceased - They merely stated that appellant used the stick and hit on the back - Absolutely, no E reference of any injury on the back of the deceased was made in the post mortem report as well as in the evidence of the Doctor (PW-10) - Also, stick allegedly used by the appellant was not shown to PW-10 - Conviction uls.302 r/w s.34 /PC insofar as appellant is concerned, thus, liable to be set aside. F Evidence - Related/interested witness - Appreciation - Held: There is no bar in considering the evidence of relatives - Where the evidence of "interested witnesses" is consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that they were G interested witnesses. The prosecution case was that A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 committed the murder of a person on account of enmity 99 H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A between him and A-1. It was alleged that A-1 to A-4 assembled near a road with an ulterior motive of killing the deceased; and on seeing the deceased, attacked him using knives, stick and iron pipe. A-1 and A-2 inflicted injuries on the deceased using knives from behind on the B head and neck respectively while A-3 attacked the deceased with a stick whereas A-4 attacked him using iron pipe over the rear portion of his neck. The trial court convicted A-1 to A-4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to C undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Against the said order, A-3 (the appellant) filed the instant appeal. D The appellant submitted that the conviction solely based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, who are brothers and interested/related eye-witnesses, cannot be sustained in the absence of corroboration from other witnesses; that both the courts below failed to notice the E fact that the medical evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in respect of the appellant (A-3) and in fact was contrary to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was liable to be set aside. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no bar in considering the evidence of relatives. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-10. The trial Court G and the High Court, in view of their relationship, closely analysed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear, cogent and without considerable contradiction. Where the evidence of "interested -.vitnesses" is consistent and duly corroborated by H medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same NAGAPPAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 101 TAMIL NADU merely on the ground that they were interested A witnesses. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. [Para 7] [106-F-H;:107-A-B] 1.2. On facts, as rightly observed by the Courts below, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 is clear, cogent and without much contradiction. In categorical terms, 8 PWs 1 & 3 asserted before the Court that A-1 and A-2 caused cut injuries to the deceased using knives (M.Os 9 & 10) and the appellant (A-3), attacked the deceased with a stick and caused extensive injuries upon the head, neck and other places resulting into his death on the way C to hospital. No doubt, they mentioned that the appellant (A-3) attacked the deceased with a stick, however, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 clearly implicated A-1 and A- 2 and the courts below have rightly accepted the case of the prosecution
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.