LexSTATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU versus SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 120
A
STATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
("
TAMILNADU
v.
SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2002)
-
B
OCTOBER 1, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
\-
SHARMA, JJ]
c
Penal Code, 1860 - s, 302 and s. 392 rlw s. - Conviction
- Acquittal by High Court finding the evidence not .cogent and
credible - Interference with - Held: Not called for since High
Court had analysed the evidence - Three of the prosecution
witnesses saw photographs and read name of accused from
D the newspaper prior to test identification parade - Evidence of
other prosecution witness Jacked reliability - Evidence - Test
~
Identification Parade.
I
Respondent was tried for offences punishable u/s.
392 r/w s. 397 IPC. Trial court, relying on the evidence of
E PWs 1 to 3 and 8, convicted and sentenced the respon-
dent u/s. 302 and u/s. 392 r/w s. 397 IPC. However, High
Court found the evidence to be not cogent and credible
and acquitted the respondent. Hence the appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
}
HELD: The High Court found that that PWs 1 to 3
had occasion to see the photographs and read the name
of the accused from the newspaper prior to the test iden-
tification parade. So far as PW-8 is concerned, the High
G Court found that his evidence was at variance with that
of PWs 1 and 2 and had also lacked reliability. He claimed
to be a person who had seen the accused after some time
;..
of the incident with a blood stained knife. But his con-
duct was found to be unnatural. If he was the only person
H
120
)
;,
I
STATE, REPRETD. BY INSP. OF POLICE, TAMILNADU 121
v. SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR
:")
to have seen the accused from close quarters, it was not A
explained why he did not say so during investigation. Such
a version for the first time in Court has been rightly dis-
carded by the High Court. The view taken by the High
Court after analyzing the evidence ca!'lnot be said to be a
view which is not possible to be taken. Thus, the appeal B
_,..
is not interfered with. [Paras 4, 7 and 8] [122-C; 123-A;
122-D,E; 123-B]
~
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 70 of 2002
c
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
205 of 1991
S. Thananjayan forthsAppellant.
I
D
K.V. Viswanathan, 8. Ragunath, K.V. Venkataraman and
.,,
K.V. Vijayakumar for the Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for E
the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the re-
spondent. The Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore
"
had found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under
..
F
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
It is to be noted that four persons, including the respondent were
tried fqr-2-offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 392 read with
Section 397 IPC. The present respondent, i.e. A-1 was tried for G
::.
offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397
IPC and A-2 to A-4 were tried for offences punishable under
Section 392 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge found the re-
spondent guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 as
well as for offences punishable under Section 392 read with
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A
Section 397 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment
~
I
for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the latter of-
fence. The High Court found the evidence to be not cogent and
credible and directed acquittal.
3. Prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PWs
B
1 to 3 and PW-8. The trial court placed· reliance on the evidence of
such witnesses and directed conviction, as recorded above.
'
~
_.,,_
4. The High Court found that it was an accepted position,
as conceded by PWs 1 and 2 that they had seen the photo-
~
c graphs and read the names of the accused in the newspaper
l
prior to the test identification parade. On that-3-ground, the High
t
Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. So far as PW-
3 is concerned, the High Court found that his version to have
only read the name of the accused in the newspaper and not to
D
have seen the photographs,. was not believable. Accordingly,
PWs 1 to 3 were disbelieved. The residual question waExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.