LexSTATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU versus N. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 596 ,.,... "":' A STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002) B SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Criminal trial - Conviction by trial Court - Acquittal by c High Court on the grounds that there was delay in lodging FIR, that the testimony of witness was not credible and serious in- iuries on accused were not explained- Interference with - Held: Singularly, these factors may not have adverse effect on pros- ecution version - But when combined effect of these factors are considered, case not made out for interference. D Prosecution case was that charge-sheet was filed against 16 persons. Trial Court convicted 6 persons. The convicted accused filed appeal while informant filed revi- sion petition questioning the acquittal of rest of accused E persons. High Court found that the evidence of PW-1 lacked credibility and allowed the appeal filed by the con- ---- victed accused persons and dismissed the revision peti- tion filed by the informant. In appeals to this Court, appellant-State contended F that the factors which weighed with the High Court to di- y - rect acquittal had no legal basis. Dismissing the appeals, the Court, HELD: Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected G documents in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the credibility of the prosecution version. But that is not the only factor which weighed with the High Court. Added to that, the High Court noted the artificiality of the evidence i - of PW-1 and the non-explanation of injuries on the ac- H 596 STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N. 597 RAJAMANICKAM & ORS. cused pe.rsons which were very serious in nature. The A combined effect of these factors certainly deserved con- sideration and the High Court rightly emphasized on them to hold that the prosecution has not been able to estab- lish the accusations. Singularly, the factors may not have adverse effect on the prosecution version. But when a B combined effect of the factors noted by .the High Court are taken into consideration, .the inevitable conclusion is that these are cases where no interference is called for. [Para 7] [598 F-H, 599-A] CRIMINALaPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c No. 668 of 2002 . From ·the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 235 of 1994 r S. Thananjayan, V.J. Francis, V. Balu, A. Radhakrishnan D and Anupam Mishra for the Appellant. R. Shunmugashunaram, P. Vajravel, M. Babu, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Rakesh K. Sharma and Dr. R. Prakash for the Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1636 of 2002. F 3. Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002 has been filed by the State questioning correctness of the judgment of a learned ·Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The appeal filed.by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was al- lowed while the criminal revision petition filed by PW-1, the G brother of the deceased was dismissed by the impugned judg- ment. Originally, 16 persons were named in the charge-sheet. Out of them, one. had died and one was absconding. The rest 14 persons faced trial. The Trial Court convicted 6 out of them who had faced trial. Those six persons preferred the criminal H 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 13 S.C.R. A appeal while the informant filed the revision petition question- ing the acquittal of rest of the accused persons. The High Court found that there Vv'.ere certain vital factors which rendered the prosecution version improbable. Some of the factors noted are the delayed despatch and receipt of the FIR and connected s documents in the court of Magistrate. The non-explanation of injuries on some of the accused persons was held to be of con- sequence. It was held that there was a clash amongst the mem- bers of complainant party and the accused persons over politi- cal factors. The High Court noted that there was no explanation c offered for the delayed receipt of the FIR and connected docu- ments, Exhs. P-1 and P-22. Added to that, the High Court found that the evidence of PW-1 lacked credibility and cogency. With these observations, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the convicted accused persons and dismissed the revision 0 petition filed by the infor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.