PALANI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 27-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
        PALANI
                         v.
                   STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148, 435 r/w. s.149 and s.302 r/w.
s.149 – Case of the prosecution that when mother and brother of
‘S’ (PW-1 and PW-2 respectively) were going in an auto, ‘S’ along
with PW-3 followed them on a motor cycle – Appellant along with
other accused persons surrounded ‘S’ – One of the accused threw
a lighted match stick into the petrol tank of the bike of ‘S’ and burnt
it into fire – On seeing this, PW-1, ‘S’ and PW-3 ran in various
directions with PW-1 following ‘S’ – When they reached near a field,
all the accused surrounded ‘S’ – ‘S’ was stabbed with knives and
died on the spot – Trial court convicted all the accused – High
Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant – Held: PW-
1 is the star witness for the prosecution – Evidence of PW-1 is clear
that the accused persons had caused the injuries as stated by her –
Her evidence is cogent, consistent and amply supported by medical
evidence and other evidence – Overt act of the appellant that he
cut the deceased with aruval had been categorically spoken by PW-
1 – Plea of appellant of false implication was concurrently rejected
by both the courts below, there is no ground to interfere with such
concurrent finding of fact – Upon appreciation of evidence, the
courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact qua appellant-
accused that he along with other accused murdered ‘S’– No ground
warranting interference with the verdict of conviction.
Evidence – Motive – When not important – Held: Where the
case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye witnesses,
the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency or insufficiency
of motive will not play such a major role as in the case which is
based on circumstantial evidence.
Evidence – Oral and Medical Evidence – Inconsistency
between – Held: Oral evidence has to get primacy and the medical
evidence is basically opinionative.
658
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 658
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
Criminal Trial – FIR – Delay in registration of – When not
fatal – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 PW-1, mother of deceased ‘S’, is the star
witness for the prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 is clear that
the accused persons had caused the injuries as stated by her.
The overt act of the appellant-accused(A7) that he cut the
deceased with aruval had been categorically spoken by PW-1.
[Paras 9, 10][664-E; 665-B]
1.2 The overt acts described by PW-1 in the FIR were
substantially corroborated by the medical evidence. Evidence of
PW-1 is cogent and consistent and her evidence is amply
supported by medical evidence and other evidence. Both the
courts below having recorded concurrent findings of fact rejecting
the contention of false implication, there is no ground to interfere
with such concurrent findings of fact. Upon proper appreciation
of evidence, the trial court has convicted the appellant/accused
for causing the murder of deceased ‘S’ which was affirmed by the
High Court.  Upon appreciation of evidence, the courts below
recorded concurrent findings of fact qua appellant-accused that
he along with other accused caused the murder of deceased ‘S’.
There is no good ground warranting interference with the verdict
of conviction. [Paras 13, 21 and 23][666-A-B; 669-A, C-D]
2. Oral evidence has to get primacy and the medical
evidence is basically opinionative. The testimony of the eye
witness cannot be thrown out on the ground of inconsistency.
When the opinion given is not inconsistent with the probability
of the case, the court cannot discard the credible direct evidence
otherwise the administration of justice is to depend on the
opinionative evidence of medical expert. The medical
jurisprudence is not an exact science with precision; but merely
opinionative.  In the case in hand, the contradictions pointed out
between the oral and medical evidence are not so grave in nature
that can prove fatal to the prosecution case.  [Para 14][666-B-E]
3.1 For the occurrence at 05.00/05.30 PM on 19.08.1996,
FIR was registered at 08.00 PM. Of course, there was a delay of
two and half hours in registration of FIR; there was also delay in
PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
receipt of FIR by the Judicial Magistrate that is at 05.00 AM on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.