LexPAULMELI AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU TR. INSP. OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 6 S.C.R. 420 PAULMELI AND ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU TR. INSP. OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No.1636 of 2011 MAY 23, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder - Allegation that two accused along with others unlawfully assembling together with C a common object to murder the victim - Indiscriminate cuts caused over his body using aruval resulting in his death - Injuries to sons of victim, who tried to intervene - Conviction of two accused for offence punishable u/s 302 by the courts below - Interference· with - Held: Not called for - Injuries found D on the person of the deceased duly supported by medical evidence as well as corroborated by the deposition of PW-1 - FIR was lodged promptly - PW 2 turned hostile but supported the case of the prosecution with regard to one of the accused, thus, his evidence is reliable - There was E sufficient light and PW 1 could identify the accused being closely related and well known even in the darkness - Further, there is it cannot be said that on the basis of the same evidence, 15 accused persons had been acquitted, the present accused could not have been convictE!d - Evidence. F G H Witness - Non-cross-examination on a particular issue - Effect of - Held: When question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the said fact! issue could not be raised. W;tness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be discarded as a whole - Relevant parts which are admissible in law, can be used by prosecution or defence. 420 PAULMELI AND ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU TR. 421 INSP. OF POLICE Evidence - Residue evidence - Effect of - Held: Even A if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, it is the duty of the court to 'separate grain from chaff - Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end - Maxim falsus in uno falsus in B omnibus-false in one thing, false in everything has no application in lnaia - Maxims. It is alleged that on account of enmity between the parties, 'R' murdered three persons. Twenty years later C seventeen pers6ns including appellants unlawfully assembled together with a common object to murder 'R' and went to the house of 'R'. They caused indiscriminate cut over his body using aruval which resulted in his death. 'R's, two sons intervened and they also sustained D . injuries. FIR was lodged. Investigations were carried out. The trial court acquitted all the accused. Thereafter, in a fresh trial, the trial court acquitted all the accused except the appellants-A-5 and A-7 who were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. The High Court upheld the order. Hence, the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, PW.1-wife of deceased, in the FIR, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition in the court, had specifically named both the appellants, even though she had named other persons also. The appellants had been known to E F the said witness for a long time as they were closely related. There was sufficient light as per the evidence on G record even otherwise there can be no difficulty to recognise so closely related persons even in darkness. The injuries found on the person of the deceased are duly supported by medical evidence as well as got corroborated by the deposition of PW 1. The concurrent H 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A findings have been recorded by the courts below in this regard. There is no force in the submissions that the injuries attributed to the appellants could not be caused by Aruval as the findings recorded by the trial coud: in this regard is that all injuries may be caused by the attack B of Aruval. [Para 10] [431-E-G] 1.2. In case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue could not be raised. In the instant case, in C respect of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, questions have not been put to the doctor who conducted the postmortem when he appeared in the witness box. In fact, he was the only c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.