THULIA KALI versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 25-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THUL1A KALI 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
February 25, 1972 
[H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Crimi1t11l Trial-First Information Report-Unexplained delay in the 
lodging of First f/nformation Report_.lnference. 
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 136-lnterfercnce---if evidence 
afflicted 'tl·'ith ex-facie infirmity. 
This Court does not normally reappraise cVict!nce in an appeal under 
article 136 of th~ Constitu~ion; but that fact would not prevent fnter-
felrenc~ with -:in order of conviction, if, on consideration of the vital prose .. 
cution evidence in the case the Court finds it to be afflicted with ex-facie 
infirmity. 
· 
The appellant was sentenced to death under s. 302 Indian Penal-Code. 
The trial Court and the High Court 'based the conviction of the appellant 
.primarily \ll>On the testimony of two witnesses one of whom according 
to the prosecu_J.ion Case w~s present when the accused made JllUrderous 
assault on the deceased and the other arrived soon after. Neither of them 
nor anyone e1se who was told' about the occurrence by the two witnesses 
made any report at ·the police station for mdre than 20 hours after the 
•·occurrence even though the police station was only t\.\'O m·iJes from the 
place of occurrence. 
Setting a5ide the conviction, 
HELD : That tbe delay in lodging the report would raise considerable 
doubt regarding the varacity of the evidence of two witnesses a~d point 
to an infirmity in -that evidence and would render it unsafe to base the 
conviction of the a9peltant. 
The fitst information rep<irt in a criminal case is an extremely vital 
and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the "ra1 
":evidenee dduced irl,'ll!e trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodg-
itl& qf the report td, the police in respect of commission of an offence ~ 
to _obtain e·ar'Jy information regarding the circumstances in which the 
crime W'll c:ommitttd, the name, of tbe actual culprits and the part play~d 
by them as well a<> the names of eye witnesses present at tlY! scene of 
occlurttnce. Delay in lodging the first information 
report __ quite 
often 
results in t!mbellishment which· is a ·creature of after thought. 
It is there-
fore essential that th:~ delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily 
explained. [626 HT 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
165 of 1971. 
Appeal biY special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 24, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 7 61 of 1970 and Referred Trial No. 50 of 1970. 
S. Lakshminarasu, for the appellant. 
A, V. Rangam, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
THULIA KALI v. STATE (Khanna, J.) 
.62:t 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Khanna, J. 
Thulia Kali (26) was 
convicted by Sessions 
Judge Salem under section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing 
the death of Madhandi Pidariammal ( 40) and under section 379 
Indian Penal Code for committing theft of the ornaments of 
Madhandi deceased. 
The accused was sentenced to death on the 
former count. 
No separate sentence was awarded for the offence 
under section 379 Indian Penal Code. 
The High Court of Mad-
ras affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused. 
The 
accused has now come up in appeal to this Court by special 
'leave. 
The pros-~cution case was that Madhandi deceased purchased 
land measuring 1 acre 62 cents from Thooliya Thiruman (PW 5), 
elder brother of the accused for rupees one thousand. 
The land 
of the accused adjoined the land sold to Madhandi deceased. 
The accused wanted Madhandi deceased to sell that land to him 
but the deceased declined to do so. 
Madhandi constructed 
a 
D 
fence around the land purchased by her, as a result of which the 
passage to the land of the accused was obstructed. 
About a week 
before the present occurrence, the accused removed some jack 
fruits from the land purchased by the deceased. 
Complaint 
about that was made by the deceased to the Panchayatdars. The 
Panchayatdars considered the matter, but the accused dec)ined to 
E 
F 
G 
H 
abide by the decision of the Panchyatdars. 
On March 12, 1970 at about 12 noon, it is stated, Madhandi 
deceased left her house situated in village Sakkarapatti along with 
her daughter-in-law Kopia Chinthamani (PW 2), aged 10, for 
Valaparathi_at a distance of about two miles from the village for 
grazing cattle. 
Shortly thereafter, Valanjiaraju (PW 1), step-
son of Madhandi deceased, al~o went to Valaparathi and 

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