RATHINAM @ RATHINAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 06-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 11 S.C.R. 871 
RATHINAM @ RATHINAN 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 905-906 of 2007 Etc.) 
OCTOBER 6, 2009 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 376, 302 and 201 - Rape and murder- For the same c 
incident, consequent upon the initial investigation another 
person was prosecuted - His trial ended in acquittal - During 
that trial, further investigation was ordered as a result of which 
the appellant was charged with the main offences of rape and 
murder - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court 0 
- HELD: The testimony of the sole witness projected as the 
eye-witness of the crime was discarded by the trial court as 
his statement was recorded for the first time in the further 
investigation after four years of the incident - Moreover, he 
was declared hostile in the earlier sessions trial -
His 
E 
statement in the.instant case is comprehensively different vis-
a-vis his statement in the earlier sessions trial - The other 
witness deposed only about remnval and disposal of the dead 
body - He is· not an eye-witness to rape and murder - His 
statement was also recorded for the first time during further 
investigation - There was no satisfactory reason for these 
F 
witnesses not to tell about the incident earlier - High Court 
erred in basing the conviction on the_ evidence of these 
witnesses :_ Judgment of High Court.set~aside and appellant 
acquitted - Appeal against acquittaf-- Evidence . 
. 
"' 
G 
Ev/DENCE -
Witnesses making statements about the 
incident for the first time during further investigation after four 
years of incident - HELD: The best check on the veracity of 
871 
H 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
a witness is the test of normal human behaviour - If the 
behaviour of a witness is unnatural and grossly against 
normal human conduct, that itself is a strong circumstance 
in doubting his evidence - The conduct of the witnesses in 
not coming forth as witness for about four years, measured 
B by any yardstick, is unacceptable. 
Appeal agains acquittal: 
Appeal before High Court against acquittal of accused 
of offences punishable u/ss 376, 302 and 201 /PC -
C 
Conviction by High Court - HELD: Interference by High Court 
in an appeal against acquittal sparingly should be made in a 
situation where findings of trial court are perverse and not 
possible on the evidence and, if two views are possible, the 
one leading to -acquittal should not be disturbed. 
D 
Administration of Criminal Justice: 
Decision making process - HELD: Court must make a 
dispassionate assessment of evidence and must not be 
swayed by the horror of the crime or the character of the 
E 
accused and the judgment must not be clouded by the facts 
of the case - Judgments/Orders. 
'C', the daughter of PW-1, was working in the Textile 
Waste Cotton Mill owned by 'MS', the mother of A-1. 
F According to the prosecution case, 'C' left for the Mill in 
the evening of 22.12.1995 as on that date she was to work 
in the night shift starting from midnight. On the following 
day when she did not reach home, her mother, PW-1 
searched for her, and saw her body in a well. As a result 
G of the initial investigation, A-4, a worker of the Mill, was 
tried for offences of rape and murder. During his trial, 
further investigation was made, statements of PW-4 and 
PW-5, who were stated to have been present in the Mill 
at the time of the incident, were recorded by the Police. 
H In the second final report pursuant to the further 
RATHINAM@ RATH1NAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 873 
AND ANR. 
investigation, A-1 was implicated as the main accused of A 
the offences of rape and murder, and four others 
including A-4, were charged with the offence punishable 
u/s 201 IPC. In the first trial of A-4, PW-4 was declared 
hostile and A-4 was acquitted. In the second trial (giving 
rise to the instant appeal), the trial court acquitted all the 
B 
accused. However, the High Court relied upon the 
evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 and convicted A-1 u/ss 376 
and 302 IPC and sentenced him to ten years RI and life 
imprisonment for the respective offences with a fine of 
Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid to PW-1. A-2 and A-4 were convicted C 
u/s 201 IPC. However, acquittal of A-3 and A-5 was 
maintained. Aggrieved, the A-1 filed Crl. A. No. 905-906 of 
2007. Crl. A. No. 1619/2007 was filed by the Investigating 
Officer who conducted the investigation from 23.12.1995 0 
to 23.3.199.6. The alleg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.