POSTMAN VENGAISAMY & ORS. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1115 · Decided: 24-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1115
POSTMAN VENGAISAMY & ORS.
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1234 of 2010)
JULY 24, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Fifteen accused – Prosecution
case was that there was history of previous attack on complainant
party – On the fateful day, all the accused armed with weapons
surrounded PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased – A-11 instigated the
other accused to cut the victim-deceased into pieces – Pursuant to
that, they were attacked whereby  A-13 chopped the left hand
below elbow of PW-1 whereas A-6 hit left shoulder of PW-2 while
the victim-deceased was attacked on several parts of his body with
sword by the accused persons – PW-1 and PW-2  escaped from the
clutches of the accused – Victim-deceased succumbed to injuries –
Trial court and High Court convicted the appellants and other
accused  persons for various offences – On appeal, held: Though,
the argument for the appellants was that PW-1 and PW-2 were
introduced witnesses but the lengthy cross-examination conducted
on them did not lead to any such inference – Postmortem report
showed multiple injuries on the victim-deceased – The oral
testimony of material witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 was corroborated
by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the
deceased was made out from the incident – Therefore, the findings
recorded by the courts below were plausible findings in law – Some
contradictions may have arisen on account of perception of the
witnesses and passage of time, but the creditability of the witnesses
were not shaken – Therefore, such witnesses were reliable and
creditworthy – Since there was a history of earlier attack on the
deceased, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take
life of the victim-deceased – No reason to interfere with the order of
conviction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  PW-4  stated that he, along with the victim-
deceased, were beaten up by the accused.  He further stated that
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1115
               1115
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
he sustained injuries on the face below both the eyes.  The
statement of PW-5, wife of PW-4 was also to the same effect.  The
oral testimony of material witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 was
corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of
taking life of the deceased was made out from the incident.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below were
plausible findings in law. Some contradictions arose on account
of perception of the witnesses and due to passage of time. But
the creditability of the witnesses was not shaken.  On the
exhortation of A-11, the accused who were armed with sword had
raised murdered assault on the deceased and also injured PW-1
and PW-2.  Since there is a history of earlier attack on the deceased
on April 8, 2003, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a
view to take life of the victim-deceased.  It is cumulative effect of
the evidence led by the prosecution which determines whether
unlawful assembly had a common object to commit culpable
homicide amounting to murder. [Paras 10-13] [1120-G-H; 1121-
A-E]
Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 12 SCC 389;
Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai
Vagh & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 261– distinguished.
Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 5 SCC 67
– held inapplicable.
                             Case Law Reference
(2016) 12 SCC 389
distinguished
Para 7
(2017) 3 SCC 261
held inapplicable
Para 7
(2019) 5 SCC 67
held inapplicable
Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1234 of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2008 of the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court  in Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2007
P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Karthik Jayashankar,  Advs. for the
Appellants.
M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Partha Sarathi, S. Raja
Rajeshwaran,  Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal survives only in respect of Accused No. 1
– Postman Vengaisami (A-1), Accused No. 11 – Thalaiyaripandi(A-11)
and Accused No. 15 – Vellachamy(A-15),as Accused No. 9 –
Rathinettamatiyan(A-9), Accused No. 10 – Kotti @ Kotteswaran (A-
10) and Accused No. 12 – Neelamegavannan(A-12) have completed
their sentence and had since been released from custody.
2. 15 accused were made to stand trial before Principal Sessions
Judge, Virudunagar District at Srivilliputtur.  The learned

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