RAJA GOUNDER & ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 28-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 11 S.C.R. 838 
RAJA GOUNDER & ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2005) 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s. 302 - Fratricide - Property dispute among brothers -
Conviction by courts below - Pleas of delay in FIR, non-
examination of independent witness, person cited as PWs 
deposing as OW, discrepancy in oral testimony and medical 
evidence ~ HELD: All these issues have been examined by 
D courts below - Incident occurred in the night, delay in lodging 
FIR by young widow has been satisfactorily explained - Since 
dispute existed within the family, independent witness would 
not ordinarily be available - There is nothing unusual that the · 
mother of the deceased and the accused, who had been cited 
as PW, appeared in court as a OW - There is no discrepancy 
E vis-a-vis the oral and the medical evidence - It would not have 
been possible to the eye-witness to identify every blow given 
by the assailants - The Court is not inclined to interfere with 
the judgments of the courts below - Delay in lodging FIR -
Evidence - Person cited as PW, deposing as OW - Variance 
F in ocular version and medical evidence. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 632 of 2005. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.07.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. A. No. 573 of 2001. 
K. Sarada Devi for the Appellants. 
S. Thananjayan for the Respondent. 
H 
838 
RAJA GOUNDER & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 839 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
A 
ORDER 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties in extenso. 
We find that two Courts have found against the appellants 
B 
more particularly that PW.1 the first informant, the wife of the 
deceased, is also the sister-in-law of the appellants as the 
deceased and the appellants were brothers. It has also come 
in evid~nce that the relations between the parties were strained 
on account of a land dispute and this was the motive for the c 
murder. 
It has been contended by Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, the learned 
counsel for the appellants, that there were several suspicious 
circumstances in the prosecution evidence in as much that the 
FIR had been lodged after 13 hours and there was no 
explanation forthcoming to explain the delay and this delay has 
been utilized by the prosecution to evolve a false story and that 
PW.2 the sister of the deceased and the appellants who had 
been cited as witness had not been produced as a witness. In 
addition, it has been argued that in the FIR, PW.1 had referred 
to two injuries caused to the deceased but eight injuries had 
been detected during the post-mortem. 
We find that all these issues have been examined by the 
Courts below and it has been found that the delay in the lodging 
the FIR had been explained as the incident had happened at 
10.00 p.m. at a little distance from the house of the deceased, 
and PW.1, a young woman, would have been in a great distress 
D 
E 
F 
and had first sent information to her parents in their village some 
distance away and had thereafter left for the police station to 
G 
lodge the report. We find that the conduct of PW.1 was perfectly 
compatible with the behaviour of a young widow who had seen 
a brutal attack on her husband. It is true that no independent 
witness has been examined but in the background that a · 
dispute existed within the family, independent witnesses would 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 11 S.C.R. 
A not ordinarily be available. We thus have absolutely no reason 
to doubt the evidence of PW.1 as she would be the last person 
to involve the appellants in a false case leaving out the real 
assailants. We are not surprised that the mother of the 
deceased and the appellants who had been cited as a PW but 
B had instead appeared in Court as a defence witness, as this 
is a common tendency in fratricides, and particularly where 
parents are involved as witnesses in as much that after tempers 
cool and there is time for reflection they find that while one child 
has .been murdered and the other faces the prospect of serving 
C a long sentence on their evidence which will, without a doubt, 
be believed, invariably makes their resile from their police 
statements. We also find no discrepancy vis.-a-vis. the ocular 
and medical evidence. We notice that the incident happened 
in the dead night and it would not have been possible for the 
0 
PW.1 to see all the blows striking the

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