SELVARAJ versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 13-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SELVARAJ 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 13, 1997 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302. 307 & 326-Murder-Property 
dispute among family members-Accused stabbed to death his brother~ 
Evidence of eye witnesses-Trial Court disbelieving the prosecution witness C 
acquitted the accused-High Court holding the accused guilty for the offence. 
convicted and sentenced him-On appeal, held, no material discrepancy in 
the evidence of the eye witnesses-High Court justified in holding that trial 
court has not properly appreciated the evidence and conclusions were illegal 
and grossly unjust-Accused had necessary intention to attack and kill the D 
deceased-Conviction and sentence upheld. 
Appellant was prosecuted for an offence under sections 302, 307 and 
326 IPC. The prosecution case was that one 's' had four sons namely, 'R' 
'V' (PWl), 'S' (appellant) and 'D'. The family had a house and land with 
trees. There was a dispute among the members of the family that the father E 
was not giving any share to PWl and 'D'. A quarrel broke out and PWl was 
attacked by some members of the family. A complaint was lodged and case 
was registered. PWl and 'D' gave evidence in the said case. Appellant was 
watching the proceeding in Court as his wife was one of the accused in that 
case. In the evening appellant made an attempt to attack PWl but was F 
prevented from persons nearby. On that night when PWl, PWS, PW6 and 
'D' were talking near the house of 'D' appellant alongwith his friend 'G' 
arrived. Appellant asked 'D' whether he was in support of PWl and stabbed 
him in the chest with a Katari knife. PWl was also stabbed. PWS and PW6 
raised alarm and appellant and his friend ran away. The injured were taken 
to the hospital. 'D' was pronounced dead and PWl was examined for his 
injuries. Appellant surrendered before the Court and denied his guilt. The 
Trial Court disbelieving the prosecution acqultted the appellant. However, on 
appeal, the High Court reversed the findi~gs of the Trial Court and convicted 
the appellant for an offence under sections 302 and 326 of IPC. Hence the 
present appeal. 
133 
G 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The contention of the appellant was that there was discrepancy in the 
evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 and were thus wholly unbelievable; that the 
nature of injuries were not proved as the post-mortem report has not noted 
the measurement thereof, and that the appellant had no intention to attack 
and kill the deceased 'D' 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was justified in holding that the Sessions 
Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and had come to conclusions 
which were perverse, manifestly illegal and grossly unjust. 1137-F-G! 
C 
1 .2. There is no material discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 
6 who were the eye witnesses. Their evidence is natural and cogent. The 
High Court has analysed the entire evidence and believed the witnesses. The 
High Court has also given sufficient reasons for differing from the Court 
of Sessions. Every reason given by the Trial Court has been considered by 
the High Court and found to be erroneous. 1137-E-Fl 
D 
2. No doubt PW6 had stated that the appellant and the relatives of PW! 
were pressing him to give evidence but he has categorically deposed that he 
is stating only what he had seen. A perusal of his evidence shows that he 
has no motive whatsoever to speak against the appellant. Thus the statement 
of PW6 cannot be torn out of the context and used by the appellant. 
E 
1138-A-BJ 
3. A perusal of the post-mortem report shows that the injury found on 
the deceased was the immediate cause of death. The evidence shows that the 
appellant did not only stab 'D' on his chest but also dragged the knife 
downward as a result of which the intestine of the victim came out of the 
F abdomen with bleeding. The contention that the post mortem report does not 
note the measurement of injury and thus it is not proved cannot be accepted. 
1138-C; GI 
4. The appellant had necessary intention to attack and kill the deceased 
'D'. PWI has stated in his evidence that the appellant on seeing PWI and 
G deceased 'D' together in front of latter's house said that he was searching 
for both and questioned 'D' as to whether he was supporting PWI. It was 
only then the appellant stabbed 'D'.1138-D-EI 
Gu/jar Hussain v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) S.C. 2027 and Mavi/a

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