Muttaicose @ Subramani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1206 OF 2010

Muttaicose @ Subramani … Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order

dated 18.06.2009 passed by High Court of judicature at

Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2007, whereby

conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions

Judge, Erode, qua appellant Muttaicose @ Subramani in

respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., is

affirmed.

Signature Not Verified

2. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2017.07.03 17:59:13 IST Reason:

the papers on record.

2

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-1 Sundaramurthy

(informant) is son of PW-2 Chidambaram and PW-3 Smt.

Papathi. PW-4 Yuvaraj and PW-12 Ramasamy are also

related to the informant. They all belong to village

Elavanatham. Accused Gurusamy (A-1) and PW-2 owned

landed property adjacent to each other. There was a ridge

between their land. Dispute arose between them over

planting of coconut trees on the common ridge by both sides.

On 26.03.2004, at about 9.30 a.m. appellant (A-2) along with

some other co-accused came to the house of the informant

and insisted on holding a Panchayat to settle the dispute to

which the informant told that Panchayat could be held at

some common place, not in his house. On this at about 4.30

p.m. on that day A-2 armed with ‘aruval’ (sickle) along with

other accused, who were also armed with deadly weapons,

like stick, iron rod, crowbar etc., came and on instigation of

A-1 they assaulted PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and

Natrajan (deceased). A-2 (appellant) said to have assaulted

with a sickle twice on the head of the deceased Natrajan after

chasing him. Natrajan (deceased) was the person who had

simply attempted to intervene between the two fighting

groups. Other accused assaulted PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-7. 3

When the crowd gathered on commotion, the accused fled

away. PW-11 Eswaramurthy took all the injured to hospital

but Natrajan had died. Rest of the injured (PW-1 to PW-4 and

PW-7) were referred from Government Hospital, Erode to

Lotus Hospital at about 9.00 p.m. On information from the

hospital, Sub-Inspector (PW-27) came and recorded

statement of PW-1, and registered Crime No. 42 of 2004 in

respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447,

448, 452, 427, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C.

4. During investigation, PW-28 Ravindran who was

Inspector of Police, went to the place of occurrence and

inspected the same. He also went to the hospital and

prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Natrajan.

PW-10 Dr. Parameswaran conducted autopsy on 27.03.2004

on the dead body of the deceased and recorded ante mortem

injuries. He opined that the deceased had died due to shock

and haemorrhage. PW-8 Dr. Kanagachalakumar recorded

the injuries on the person of injured (eye witnesses). The

Investigation Officer after collecting evidence and on

completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against

all the 14 accused, including appellant Muttaicose @ 4

Subramani.

5. On committal of the case, the Court of Session, after

hearing the parties, framed charge in respect of offences

punishable under Sections 147, 450, 307, 324, 302 I.P.C.

and in respect of offence punishable under Section 3 of Tamil

Nadu Properties (Damage and Loss) Prevention Act against

all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried. The prosecution got examined as many as 28

witnesses, and proved various documentary evidence on

record which was put to the accused. They alleged that the

evidence against them was false. In defence they got

examined DW-1 Dr. Velusamy. The trial court found that

A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 guilty of charge of offence punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. in respect of

commission of murder of Natrajan. The convicts filed

criminal appeal before the High Court.

6. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence,

found that appellant (A-2) has assaulted the deceased twice

on his head, after chasing him, as such only he is guilty of

offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and affirmed the 5

sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-

awarded by the trial court against him, and A-1, A-4, and

A-5 who had assaulted other witnesses were convicted only

under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to

imprisonment already undergone. This appeal is filed by A-2

in respect of whom the conviction and sentence regarding

offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is upheld by the

High Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that

in the present case the First Information Report (for short

‘F.I.R’.) is delayed, and contains an afterthought story, by

implicating several persons, including A-2. It is further

argued on behalf of the appellant that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3

and PW-4 are related to each other as such their testimony

is not trustworthy. It is also contended that even otherwise

it’s a case of sudden fight and there could not have been any

motive or intention on the part of the A-2 to commit murder

of Natrajan. It is also pointed out that A-2 is languishing in

jail for last seven years.

8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel 6

for the appellant and reply given by the learned counsel for

the State. In the present case incident is proved to have

been occurred at 4.30 p.m. on 26.03.2004. On the same day

First Information Report has been lodged at 11.30 p.m. The

distance between police station and place of incident is six

(6) kms. Here, it is relevant to mention that the informant

who got injured in the incident, was first taken to the

hospital. In the circumstances, we do not find any force in

the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the

delay in F.I.R. is not explained.

9. In Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others Vs. State of

Bihar1, this court has observed as under:

“16. It is trite that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution. Nevertheless, it is a relevant factor of which the court is obliged to take notice and examine whether any explanation for the delay has been offered and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. However, in the event, the delay is properly and satisfactorily explained; the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Obviously, the explanation has to be considered in the light of the totality of the facts and

1 (2008) 12 SCC 173 7

circumstances of the case.”

10. In Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs. State of

Punjab2, this court has observed as under:

“14. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident.”

In view of the above settled position of law, and

considering the explanation of prosecution, we do not find

any reason to doubt the prosecution story on the ground of

alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report.

11. As to the testimony of the related witnesses, it is clear

2 (2001) 7 SCC 690 8

from the record that all the four eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2,

PW-3 and PW-4 are injured eye witnesses, and injuries on

their person are proved on the record. They cannot be

simply disbelieved for the reason that they are related to

informant. No doubt, the evidence of the interested or

related witnesses is required to be scrutinized more

carefully, but in the present case, even after scrutinizing the

testimony of the injured witnesses with caution, we do not

find any reason to doubt their testimony.

12. As to the motive or intention on the part of the A-2 to

commit murder of the deceased what is important is that

the appellant (A-2) who was armed with the deadly weapon

chased the deceased and assaulted twice on his head. All

these facts taken together clearly show that the culpable

homicide in the present case amounts to murder. Needless

to say that there is nothing on the record to show that the

deceased gave any provocation to the appellant (A-2) to

make him to assault the deceased.

13. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any

sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order

passed by the High Court affirming the conviction and 9

sentence recorded against the appellant (A-2) in respect of

offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

14. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and

the same is dismissed.

……………….....…………J. [Prafulla C. Pant]

.……………….……………J. [Deepak Gupta]

New Delhi;

July 03, 2017.

10

ITEM No. 1503 Court No. 10 SECTION II-C (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2010

MUTTAICOSE @ SUBRAMANI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)

Date : 03.07.2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C.Pant pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(Shashi Sareen) (S.S.R.Krishna) AR-cum-PS Assistant Registrar

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)