LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU versus KARUPPUSAMY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU A ...... v . KARUPPUSAMY AND ORS. MARCH 31, 1992 [A. M. AHMADI AND S. MOHAN, JJ.) B Penal Code, 186()-Sections 34, 354, 302-Appeal against acquittal by High Court-Appreciation of evidence by High Court-E"oneous and result- ing in miscarriage of justice. c --- The prosecution's case was that on 28.7.1976 at about 4P.M., P.W.1, )l.. aged 22 years was grazing her sheep in the field. Accused 1 and 2 (the respondents) and one Selvaraj were also grazing their sheep nearby. The -- ~ accused persons approached P.W.1. When Accused 1 pushed P.W.1 down and pulled up her saree in order to outrange her modesty, the other two D stood on either side of her. P.W.1 managed to escape and ran towards the road. The respondents (Accused 1 and 2) were armed with aruvals (sick- les). P.W.l's paternal uncle (the deceased) was passing by on his bicycle carrying his 11 year old daughter (P.W .2) from the School. On hearing the E shouts of P.W.1, her uncle got down from his bicycle. When P.W.l was narrating the incident to the deceased, the accused reached there, the accused persons threatened the decesased with dire consequences, when he questioned the accused and told them that the matter would be reported to the Village Panchayat. Accused 2 caught hold of the right hand of the deceased while Accused 1 cut the hand. When the deceased attempted F toward off the cut with his left hand, the thumb and the fingers were severed. Receiving cuts form the Accused 1 on the left hand, head, neck and right shoulder, the deceased fell down. Then the Accused cut off his \ head with his aruval. When P.W.1 cried on seeing the ghastly sight, P.Ws. 4 and 5 and one G Sarvanan came running to the place of occurrence. Accused 2 ran away throwing his arnval and Accused 1 also ran away carrying the head of the deceased and his arnval. Though P.W.5 and one Sarvanan were chasing Accused 1, were returned when they were threatened by the Accused 1. -- P.W.4 chased Accused 2 but could not catch him. H 415 .. A B c 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R. At about 5.30 P.M., P.W.1 reported to the P.W.6 (the Village Munsif) about the occurrence, which was written down by P.W.6. He went to the place of occurrence. Along with his own report, he sent the P.W.l's Written Statement to the Police Statinn, sending cnpies of the same to the local Magistrate. P.W. Hi (the Sub- Inspector) registered a case u/ss. 302 and 354, IPC and commenced investigation. The accused-respondents were tried before the Sessions Judge. The defence denied the charges. The Sessions Judge convicted both the accused-respondents. But they were acquited by the High Court, against which this appeal was filed by the State, by special leave. The appellant-State contended that the High Court had completely misdirected itself with regard to the appreciation of evidence, by lightly dealing "Yith the evidence of the four eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 3; that merely because P.W.1 a rustic village Woman did not know the names of P.Ws.4 and 6 it did not mean her evidence was liable to be rejected; that D the High Court erred in holding that the el·idence of P.W.1 was unreliable, merely on the ground that she was not able to identify P.Ws. 4 and 5 and she could not name them properly; that the evidence of P.W.2, a child witness, who was having no motive against the accused, ought to have been accepted; that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 was rejected on the ground E that they did not mention the accused severing the head and carrying the head away; and that the failure of P.W.11 to note the presence of sheep or goats around the scene of occurrence was immaterial. The respondents contended that unless the appreciation of evidence by the High Court was perverse, tbis Court normally would not interfere F against an order of acquittal; that in this case it could not be contended that the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court was perverse, and that it was the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case; hence this Court's intereference not warranted. G Allowing the appeal of the State, this court, HELD : 1.01. Only a tutored witness can depose in a parrot-like fashion. On the contrary, a natural witness is bound to commit mistakes. In the instant case the mistakes are so incnnsequential and immateria! H when she mentions the name of Mu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.