PADMANABAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 252 
A 
PADMANABAN 
v. 
,., ' 
STATE BY INSPECTOR 01= POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2009 etc.) 
B 
JULY 31, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 452, 431 and 302 -
Prosecution under - Death caused with deadly weapons -
c Eye-witnesses to the incident·- Conviction by courts below -
On appeal, held: Conviction confirmed - Evidence of the eye-
witnesses are reliable - Their depositions corroborated by 
medical evidence - Motive for the offence proved - Offence 
not covered u/s. 304 (Part I) /PC. 
D 
Appellants-accused, along with other accused were 
prosecuted for having killed one person. As per 
'" 
prosecution, there was long-standing enemity between 
• 
the two groups in the village to which the accused and 
~
E the deceased belonged. The accused and deceased 
were from the same group. The accused assaulted the 
deceased because he supplied electricity line to the 
people of the other community for their festival. Pws 1, 2 
and 3 were the three eye-witnesses to the incident. 
F 
Accused No. 1 absconded and accused No. 3 died during 
pendency of the trial. Trial court convicted accused Nos. 
2 and 4 to 8 ulss. 147, 148, 452, 431 and 302 IPC. High 
Court, in appeal, acquitted accused Nos. 6 to 8 on the 
ground that no overt act had been attributed to them; and 
that PW 3 did not assign any specific role so far as they 
. ' 
G were concerned. However, conviction of appellants-
accused was confirmed. Hence the present appeals, by 
). 
appellants-accused. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
252 
PADMANABAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 
253 
POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
HELD: 1.1.Both the courts below have placed implicit A 
·- >-
reliance on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. In view of their 
depositions, there is no reason to differ therewith. [Para 
15] [261-G] 
1.2. PWs 1 and 2 may be closely related to the 
B 
deceased but the same, by itself, would not be a ground 
for rejecting their testimonies outright. PW-3 was not 
related to the deceased. The injuries suffered by the 
deceased have been proved. The medical evidences in 
--;. 
no uncertain terms corroborate the depositions of the c 
eye-witnesses. The injuries on the person of the 
deceased were found to have been inflicted by the 
appellants and the appellants alone. [Para 16) [261-H; 
262-A-B] 
1.3. The eye-witnesses account clearly proved the 
D 
motive on the part of the accused to commit the said 
-! 
offence. The deceased being a member of the Naidu 
~ 
Community was reprimanded by his community member 
as he had tried to do something for the members of the 
other community. The fact that the shop of the deceased 
E 
was located near the residential colony of the members 
of the Adi Dravida Community is not in dispute. It is also 
not in dispute that they held a function on the Republic 
->c: 
Day. The fact that electrical connection was taken from 
the shop premises of the deceased wherefor a case for 
F 
theft of electrical energy was recorded has been 
established. [Para 16] [262-A-D] 
1.4. The plea that PW-1 could not have seen the 
occurrence from a distance of 10 feet cannot be 
accepted. The occurrence has taken place inside a shop G 
and not inside a residential house. The shop being open, 
there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW-1 
to state in details in regard to the manner in which the 
occurrence had taken place. Presence of PWs 2 and 3 at 
the place of occurrence has also been found to be 
H 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A acceptable by the courts below. [Para 17) [262-G-H; 263-
A-BJ 
>\ 
1 
1.5. Some delay might have been caused in lodging 
of the First lnformatiion Report, but, the same has 
B sufficiently been explaiined. No doubt lodging of a First 
Information Report at the earliest possible opportunity is 
desirable, but, the courts cannot also ignore the ground 
realities that the relatives of the deceased would give 
priority to the treatment: of a severely injured person. The 
action on the part of th1~ prosecution witnesses, in giving 
..-
c priority to the treatment to the injured was wholly 
justifiable. [Paras 18 and 19) [263-B-E] 
1.6. It cannot be said that PWs 2 and 3 are chance 
witnesses. PW-3 is owner of a shop which is situated by 
0 the side of the shop belonging to the deceased. The place 
of occurrence is a small village. PW-2's presence, 
therefore, at the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted 
+ 
or disputed. [Para 21) [264-

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