LexVIJAYKUMAR versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 919 VIJAYKUMAR A v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 566-567 of 2002) APRIL 21, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 1' Appeal against acquittal - Appeal before High Court • against order of acquittal passed by trial court - Power of High c Court - Scope of - Discussed. Penal Code, 1B60: ss.302, 341, 307 r.w. s.302 rlw s.34- -· Assault by sword and knife allegedly resulting in death and injuries to others - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High D .. · Court - On appeal, Held: There was no delay either in taking victim tO hospital or in informing doctor about the occurren,ce and in lodging F.l.R. - Evidence of P. W.1 relating to the attac[< , on deceased and taking of deceased to hospital was well corroborated by documentary evidence and the oral evidence E of doctor - P. W. 1 was related to deceased, however his evidence cannot be rejected especially when he had no reason to speak falsehood against both the accused - Evidence of PW.3 who was an educated, independent, not related and whose house was opposite to the place of F occurrence also found cogent and credible - Conviction upheld - Evidence - Related witness. Prosecution case was that deceased was assaulted by the two accused persons with sword and knife and in the process, one of the accused persons also got G • injured. The trial court passed order of acquittal which was set aside by the High Court. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 919 H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. There is no delay either in taking the victim to the hospital and informing the Doctor about the occurrence and on the immediate information given by the Doctor, P.W.1 came and got a complaint, registered F.l.R. and observed other formalities by sending the F.l.R. B to the Court without any furthe1 delay. This evidence of P.W.1 relating to the attack on the deceased and P.W.1 and the taking of the deceased to the hospital has been well corroborated by documentary evidence Exs.P1, P4 and P5 and the oral evidence of P .Ws.4 and 11. The C Doctor P.W.4 also would state that the injuries found on the deceased and P.W.1 could be caused by M.Os.1 and 2. [Paras 12 and 13] [928-C-E] 2. Admittedly, there are two types of injuries on the body of the deceased. P.W.4 Doctor specifically stated D that some injuries are curved injuries and some injuries are cut injuries. The reading of the evidence of P.W.4, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased found as many as eight injuries. The first injury was curved. PWs.1 to 3 stated that A1 inflicted the injuries by E M01. Merely because P.W.1 happens to the brother of the deceased, his evidence cannot be rejected especially when he had no reason to speak falsehood against both the accused. It is settled law that the relative witness would not allow the real culprit to escape and implicate F the person who is innocent. But however, the evidence has to be carefully analysed. In this case, the evidence of P.W.1 has not only been corroborated by the other materials referred to above but also the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are independent and unrelated G witnesses. P.W.2 at the time of occurrence was studying in. the school. He is the friend of brother of P. W.1. According to him, on the date of occurrence, P.W.2 and his friend accompanied P.W.1 and the deceased to go to river for taking bath. On the way, the occurrence had H taken place. He could state about the occurrence only. ...... • VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 921 MADRAS AND ANR. He did not refer about the other happenings with A reference to the motive as spoken to by P.W.1. Atthe time of deposition, he was studying B.A. He clearly corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with reference to the overt acts attributed to each of the accused. Nothing has been elicited from P.W. 2 that he had anything to speak B falsehood against the accused. As a matter of fact, when the victim was taken in a car to hospital, he also accompanied him: When Ex.P1 complaint was given to P.W.11 Head Constable, P.W.2 attested the said complaint. In Ex.P1 also the name of P.W.2 is mentioned. c P .W.2 was examined at the .hospital during the course of inquest by P.W.14. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2. [Para 14, 15, 16 and 17] [928-E-Hi 929-A-F] 3. The most i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.