LexTAMILSELVAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 888 "i A TAMILSELVAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2006) 8 AUGUST 5, 2008 (ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) ., Criminal Trial: Murder/Culpable homicide - Accused sandalwood c smugglers allegedly shot down a forest guard and injured oth- ers - Trial Court found six accused persons guilty of commit- ting offence of murders punishable under S.302 /PC and sen- tenced them to life imprisonment - High Court acquitted all the accused except appellant - Correctness of - Held: No- D body named as accused in FIR but later accused persons by name have been implicated - Material inconsistencies found between version given in FIR and deposition made before trial Court - Prosecution witnesses could not have identified any of the accused merely by moonlight or in the light of a torch a/leg- E edly carried by accused - Thus, identity of accused not satis- factorily established - On facts, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Since case of accused-ap- pe//ant not different from accused nos. 2 to 6 who have been acquitted by the High Court, conviction of appellant no. 1 alone F can not be upheld - At any event, in the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt has to be given to appellant. ): Informant, a Forest Guard lodged an FIR in the Po- lice Station stating that some Sandalwood Smugglers shot c;lown a forest guard and injured a gardener while G they were on vigilance duty in the forest area. Police in- vestigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. Trial Court found accused nos.1 to 6 guilty of committing the offence of murder pun- 't ishable under S.302 IPC and sentenced them to life im- H 888 TAMILSELVAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 889 OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU prisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted accused A nos. 2 to 6 but upheld the conviction and sentence as against accused No.1. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On perusal of the FIR, it appears that no- B body has been named as an accused in the FIR. The ac- cused have been described as unidentified persons in a group consisting of 50 persons. The FIR was lodged on 28.1.1996 at 6.30 a.m., whereas the date and time of the occurrence was 27 .1.1996 at 10.30 p.m. Thus there is a c · time gap of eight hours between the time of the occur- rence and the lodging of the FIR. (Para - 6) [893-E-F] 1.2Various material inconsistencies have been found between the version given in the FIR and in the deposi- tion before the trial court. It is difficult to accept the ver- D sion of the prosecution witnesses that they could have identified any of the accused merely by the moonlight. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is stated that the accused were carrying torches, but there is no indi- cation whether the victims, including the deceased, the E Forest Guard and other a Gardener, who sustained fire injuries, carried torches. Since it was the accused who allegedly carried torches, it is difficult to believe how the prosecution witnesses could have identified the assail- ants. The position would have been different if the forest F guards had been carrying torches and had been point-· ing them at the assailants, but here the position is just the reverse. In fact due to the torches of the assailants the prosecution witnesses would have been partially blinded by the light of the torch, and would not have been able to G identify anybody. (Paras - 7 & 9) [893-G,H, 894-C-D] 1.3 Nobody has been named as an accused in the FIR. It is only later that the accused 1 to 6 have been impli- cated by name. The FIR was lodged 8 hours after the inci.; dent. Thus there was opportunity of subsequent improve- H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 11 S.C.R. A ment in the prosecution case. PW 1, the Forest Guard, the first i.nformant, has stated in his deposition before the Trial Court that he had not mentioned the names of the accused in the FIR because he was shocked due to the assault and because of the death of the another Forest 8 Guard, ·and hence the names of the accused did not strike his mind. This version of the informant cannot be accepted 1 because the FIR was not lodged immediately after the in- cident, but 8 hours thereafter. Hence the shock in the mind of the informant would have subsided after these 8 hours, c and there was no goo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.