LexPERIYASAMY versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 747 : 2024 INSC 212 Periyasamy v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2019) 18 March 2024 [Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court justified in affirming the judgment of trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, (A-1), for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 307 of Penal Code, 1860 and accused appellant (A-2) for the offence punishable under sections 302/109 & 307/109 of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.307 – Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellants – Relying on ocular and medical evidence – High Court confirmed the sentence and conviction – Whether the sentence and conviction falls short of standard of beyond reasonable doubt: Held: Trial court primarily relied on testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 – PW-1 is an injured witness and a relative of D1 – PW-2 is also an injured witness and a neighbor of D1 – The evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter – PW-2 deposed that were about 50 persons at the scene of the crime – Then, how has the non-examination of independent witness been countenanced by the prosecution is something that escapes, or rather confounds this Court – The evidence of PW-3 appears to be fraught with contradictions – His actions not to be akin to that of a prudent man – When A-1 had allegedly broken a bottle on the head of D1, PW-3 took the injured D1 not to the hospital but to an STD booth located nearby – Why a person would “hold” a person with a grievous head injury near an STD booth and not take him to the hospital – Significant delay in recording statements of PW-1 and PW-2 – Various lapses such as these cumulatively affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution 748 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports case, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt – Challenge on the grounds sustained, among others that, (a) examined private persons were interested witnesses, with inconsistencies amongst them; (b) no independent witnesses were examined; (c) there was a delay in filing the FIR; (d) there were interpolations on record; (e) there were numerous lapses in the investigation; and (f) the medical and scientific evidence on record does not support the prosecution’s version of events. [Paras 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 47,48] Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 307– Role of an investigating officer is that of the backbone of the entire criminal proceeding in respect of the particular offence(s) he is charged with investigating – Faulty Investigation - Examined. Held: The investigation officer of a case is the charioteer tasked with using the resources and personnel at his disposal to ensure law and order as also that a person who has committed a crime is brought to the book – Nowhere has it come on record as to how the investigating officer (PW-22) reached the bus stand from where A-2 was arrested – who informed the authorities about A-2’s movement by bus – PW-22 made two visits to the scene of the crime and that he also examined several witnesses - how is there a striking lack of independent witnesses to lend credence to the prosecution’s version of events – He also did not conduct any scientific investigation at the spot of crime – The wound certificate for PW-1 and PW-2 was issued by Doctor, who had not been examined in the instant proceedings – Was it that the initial investigation was being managed so as to shield the real assailants, which could have been the complainant party themselves? – Particularly when, as the record reveals, as is so admitted by PW-22 of A-2 being a practicing advocate who has been, (i) pursuing the matters against the officials of the police station (ii) has been lodging complaints against the police officials for inaction; and (iii) had nothing to do with the ownership, management or control of the wine shop – The injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer in their testimony together are not inspiring confidence – The prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no conviction resting thereupon can be said to be just in the eyes of law – appeals are allowed and the convictions accordingly set aside. [Paras 43, 44, 46, 47] [2024] 3 S.C.R. 749 Periyasamy v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police Case Law Cited Raghbir Singh & Ors. v. State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.