RAJAGOPAL versus MUTHUPANDI @ THAVAKKALAI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 28-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
) 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 84 
RAJAGOPAL 
v. 
MUTHUPANDI@ THAVAKKALAI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of2013) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 307 r!w ss.149 and 148 - Prosecution under - Attack with 
deadly weapons - By five accused - Causing 12 grave injuries -
Corroborated by medical evidence - Injured eye-witness in his 
complaint as well as evidence stated the details as to role of each of 
the accused - Identified all the accused - Conviction by trial 
court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held: The direct 
evidence of injured eye-witness is not doubtful - High Court, without 
discrediting such witness, could not have acquitted the accused 
persons - Therefore, the view taken by High Court cannot be said 
to be a possible view -Acquittal order set aside - Conviction order 
restored. 
Criminal Trial: 
Motive - Evidentiary value of - Held: Where there is direct 
evidence, motive does not have to be established. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. PW-1 has nncqnivocally stated both in his 
complaint and in evidence tendered before the Conrt, which has 
not been shaken in cross, that the five accused persons, after 
shouting and abusing him, assaulted him with deadly weapons. 
Not only has he identified all five, but he has also stated with 
great clarity, the role of each one of them as to what exactly each 
one shouted and which weapon was wielded on which specific 
part of his body. There can be absolutely no doubt having regard 
to this direct evidence that from the weapons used and from what 
was shouted and from the nature of the injuries, the common 
object of this unlawful assembly was to kill PW-1. [Para 6] [87-
E-F] 
84 
RAJAGOPAL v. MUTHUPANDI @ THAVAKKALAI & ORS. 
85 
· 2. Without discrediting the evidence of PW-1, the injured 
A 
witness, the judgment of the High Court has crossed the line of 
non-interference in acquittals, namely, that it is not a possible 
view. [Para SJ f87"DI 
· 
3. In view of the direct evidence of PW-1, which has not 
been adverted tQc,or disbelieved by the High Court, the delay of 
B 
eight hours in the filing of the FIR can be disregarded. [Para 7) 
[87-G, 88-A] 
4. Motive does not have to be established where there is 
direct evidence. Given the brutal assault made on PW-1 by 
criminals, the fact that witnesses have turned hostile can also cut 
both ways, as is well known in criminal jurisprudence. [Para 9] 
[88-D-E] 
5. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not a 
possible view and the acquittal of the five accused persons is set 
aside and the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by 
the Trial Court is restored. [Para 10] [88-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1582 of2013 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2010 of the High Court 
of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. No. 268 of 2005. 
c 
D 
V. Prabhakar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the Appellant. 
E 
V. Kathirvelu, Sr. Adv., P. V. Yogeswaran, Ms. V. Susheatha, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. l. The facts in the present case are as 
follows:-
i) Five accused persons, armed with deadly ~eapons, attacked and 
injured Rajagopal (PW-I) at about 2.30 p.m. on 06.11.1999, who was 
standing at the Kandavilai bus stop, causing at least 12 grave injuries 
which involved fracture of his skull, fracture of the bones of both legs as 
well as on the wrist. , Subsequently, PW-I suffered amputation of both 
legs as a consequence of the attack suffered by him. 
ii) The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses, and Rajagopal 
(PW-1 ), the Complainant himself, has, both in his complaint and evidence, 
(which was not shaken in cross-examination), stated in detail as to the 
role of each of the accused. 
F 
G 
H 
86 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
iii) fr may be mentioned he~e that allthe accused were identified by hiin, 
and accused No. I abused him and stated "hack him to death.· Let him 
die and get lost." Accused No.2 hacked at his left arm left hand elbow·-·-
with a sickle after which accused No. I hit him on his head with a sickle 
and further injured him by hacking at the left lateral malleolus. Accused 
No.3, another son of accused No.I, hacked at PW-1 's right loin and 
back and also injured him by hacking at his right lateral malleolus. Accused 
No.4 hit his chin with a sickle, and accused No.

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