SUDHAKAR @ SUDHARASAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIRANGAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 612 · Decided: 12-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  4 S.C.R.
SUDHAKAR @ SUDHARASAN
v.
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIRANGAM
POLICE STATION, TRICHY, TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2018)
MARCH 12, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that appellant
was found strangulating the neck of his grandmother with his hands
– P.W-1(son-in-law of deceased), who was sleeping in the adjoining
room, upon hearing the screams of the deceased, rushed to her and
witnessed the crime being committed – Appellant then took money
bag from the possession of the deceased and fled away from the
spot – Accused was arrested next day at bus stand, in presence of
PWs 11 and 12 – Appellant-accused convicted by the trial Court
and conviction affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
Conviction by the Courts below suffers from patent error of law –
PWs 11 and 12 in their examination-in-chief denied the prosecution
story about their presence at the time of arrest and seizure of material
objects from the possession of the accused and they turned hostile
– Prosecution case rested on evidences of PW 1 and  his wife (PW
5) who were closely related to the accused-appellant – The relations
between accused-appellant and  PWs 1 & 5 were strained over
property issues and they were in inimical terms – As the prosecution
has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses, the Court has
to be cautious while analyzing such evidence – Other than these
witnesses, there were no independent witnesses to support the case
of prosecution – Nothing on record to support the version of PWs 1
& 5 – It was on record that when the deceased was brought to the
hospital, in the accident register, it was written as ‘history of fall’ –
According to prosecution blood came out from the mouth and nose
of the deceased, but there appears no seizure of bloodstained clothes
of the deceased and chemical analysis – There was inconsistency
in evidence by the alleged eyewitnesses as well as investigation
agency – Thus, there exists reasonable doubt in instant case as the
case of prosecution is un-supported by independent witnesses,
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 612
                                                 612
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
ridden with contradictions, good motive for false prosecution and
filled with suspicious circumstances.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The whole basis for the Courts below to convict
the accused appears to be the version of the prosecution that the
accused was arrested next day at about 11 a.m. at bus stand, in
presence of PWs 11 and 12, and brushed aside the plea of alibi
presented by the accused with due support by the evidence of
DW1. It is worthwhile to note that both of these witnesses (PWs
11 & 12) in their examination-in-chief denied the prosecution
story about their presence at the time of arrest and seizure of
material objects from the possession of the accused and they
turned hostile. This fact casts serious doubts on the veracity of
prosecution story about the arrest of the accused. [Para 14] [619-
C-D]
2. Admittedly, at the time of alleged incidence, PW 5 (wife
of PW1) and PW 6 (son of PWs 1 & 5) were not present near the
alleged scene of offence. As regards the evidences of independent
witnesses (PWs 2, 3 and 4), who were residents of the same street
as that of the deceased and who were examined as ocular
witnesses, PW 2 (tenant of PW 5) turned hostile and did not
support the prosecution case. Another shortfall in the prosecution
case is that PW1 deposed that he gave oral complaint to police,
but a contrary statement was put forth by PW15—I.O. stating
that he got a written complaint from PW1. [Para 15] [619-C-D, G]
3.1 From the stated facts, it emerges that the entire
prosecution case rests on the evidences of PWs 1 and 5 who are
closely related to the accused—appellant. The accused is none
other than the son of PW 5’s brother and PW 1 is the husband of
PW5 and PW6 is the son of PWs 1 & 5. Clearly, the relations
between the accused—appellant and PWs 1 & 5 were strained
over property issues and they were in inimical terms. Apparently,
there was also a civil suit pending between them for partition of
properties. [Para 16] [619-H; 620-A-B]
3.2 It is settled law that there cannot be any hard and fast
rule that the evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into
consideration and they cannot be termed as witnesses. But, the
only burden that would be cast upon the Courts in those c

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