STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU versus RAJENDRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 25-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 16 S.C.R. 614 
A 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
B 
c 
v. 
RAJENDRAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 7.55 of 2001) 
"NOVEMBER 25, 2008 
. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
s. 302134 -
Four accused attacking a person 
indiscriminately with 'aruva/' and metal tipped stick causing 
his death - Evidence of eye'-witnesses adduced - Conviction 
by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: Judgment of 
o High Court is full of abrupt conclusions and contrary to 
evidence on record - No basis for arriving at such conclu~ions 
, indicated - There wa$ nothing to discard evidence of eye-
' witnesses - Judgment of .High Court being indefensible, set 
aside. - Arms Act, 1.9:59 - s.25. 
E 
Respondents nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted for murder 
of the brother-in-law of PW-5 on the allegations thafthey, 
·armed with 'aruval' and metal.tipped stick, ·on 17.9.1989 
at about 6 p:m. attacked him indiscriminately causing his 
death. The incide~t was witnessed by PW-1 and PW-3, the 
F sister and the mother of PW-5 as also by PW-2. PW-1 
gave a complaint to the police and the FIR was registered 
at 7 .00 p.m. It was the case of the prosecution that there 
was enmity between PW-5 and the accused and earlier 
on one occasion A-2 had assau'lted PW-5 of which the 
G latter lodged an FIR. In another incident A-3 while in the 
company of A-1 and A-4 assaulted PW-5 and at that time 
he was saved by the deceased, and both went to the 
police station to lodge an FIR. Since the deceased was 
H 
coming in support of PW-5 and his family members, the 
614 
L .. 
J 
' ' 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
615 
TAMIL NADU v. RAJENDRAN & ORS. 
accused finished him off. The trial court convicted the A 
accused u/s 302 IPC. Three of the accused were also 
convicted u/s 25, Arms Act. But, as the High Court 
acquitted the accused, the State and the complainant filed 
the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court's judgment is full of 
abrupt _conclusions and contrary to the evidence on 
record. The High Court has considered certain factors to 
be material whereas in fact they are not so. Non-mention C 
of the name of the deceased in the company of PW 5 in 
Ext.P-5, the FIR of the earlier incident, has been 
considered to be a vital omission. No basis for such a 
conclusion has been indicated. There was nothing to 
discard the evidence of the eye witnesses. [Para 6] [621-
D 
B-C] 
1.2. The High Court erred in concluding that there was 
delay in dispatch of information and inquest report, 
casting doubt on authenticity of the FIR. Conclusions E 
arrived at are totally without foundation. The evidence of 
PW 8 is clear and cogent as to why the documents 
reached the court late. There is not even any discussion 
as to why the explanation given was not acceptable. 
Similarly on the basis of the presence of partly digested F 
food found on post-mortem, the High Court came to a 
conclusion on purely surmises doubting the time of 
occurrence. [Para 6] (621-0-F] 
1.3. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court that 
the investigating officer should have examined G 
somebody else to conclude that PWs 1 and 3 were 
present at the scene of occurrence is legally 
unsupportable. The inquest report need not contain the 
names of all the witnesses. In any event the name of PW 
1 was stated. There is no discussion as 'to in what manner H 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 suffered from any infirmity. 
~
. The judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set 
aside. (Para 6] [621-G-H; 622-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
8 
No. 755 of 2001. 
c 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2000 of the 
bligh Court of.Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 262 
of 1991. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2001. 
V. Kanagaraj, S. Thananjayan, V.G. Pragasam, Ashwarya 
Sinha, Aabhas. Parimal and Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the 
o Appellant. 
Sushil Kumar, V. Balachandran for the Respondents. 
Ttie Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
E 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 
2001 has been filed by the State wh
0
ile Criminal Appeal No. 756 
of 2001 has been filed by the informant. 
2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the judgment of a 
F 
Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of 
·the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of 
offences punishable under Section 302 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.