Thiru Sudali @ Madasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu
- SCC(1999) 9 SCC 88
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 1434
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a trial court rejects eyewitness evidence and dying declarations on flimsy grounds without substantial reasoning, and the High Court on appeal examines each ground of rejection and demonstrates that none is tenable, the appellate court will defer to the High Court's findings of fact unless those findings are demonstrably perverse or rest on no evidence. Where dying declarations are made by the victim to police within 45 minutes of the incident and recorded by a Judicial Magistrate at 6:45 a.m., with the victim naming his assailants, and the dying declarations are corroborated by eyewitnesses who saw the accused fleeing the scene, knew both the accused and the deceased prior to the incident, had no reason to falsify their evidence, and took the injured to the police station, such dying declarations are admissible and reliable evidence of identification, notwithstanding the prior poor relations between the victim and the accused. Where eyewitnesses testify that they saw two accused persons running away from the scene of the incident immediately after hearing shouts, that they chased the accused until shown a knife, and that they knew both the accused and the deceased beforehand, the absence of any motive to falsely depose against the accused renders their evidence credible corroboration of the victim's dying declarations identifying those accused as the assailants.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The appellant was tried along with Pandey @ Ram Krishnan for committing murder of Kittu @ Muthu Krishnan in Sessions Case No. 95/76. The court of Sessions, Madurai, acquitted both the accused. On appeal by the State, the High Court convicted both of them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Against the order of acquittal, a revision application was also filed by the brother of the deceased. Pandey has not challenged his conviction. This appeal is filed by Sudali @ Madasamy only.
2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the three dying declarations - Exhs. P1, P15 and P8 of Kittu @ Muthu Krishnan.
3. The trial court did not believe the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and also the dying declarations. It gave 11 reasons in support of its findings. The High Court considered each one of those reasons and pointed out that none was good enough to sustain the findings. We have considered the reasons given by the trial court and we find that they were rightly held not acceptable. On flimsy grounds, the trial court had rejected the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the dying declarations. The High Court has given good reasons for believing the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the dying declarations. The appellant was none other than the person who was earlier working with the deceased and whose services were terminated by the deceased. There was enough light when the incident had taken place. The FIR was lodged within 45 minutes. At about 4.30 a.m., Inspector Incharge had taken further statement of the deceased and at 6.45 a.m. his dying declarations was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Thus, within a short time, the deceased had disclosed the names of his assailants. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that as his relations with the deceased were not good, the deceased had falsely involved him because the deceased would not have liked to do so and allow the real culprits to go set free. The dying declarations also receive corroboration from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who have said that when they heard shouts they came out of the nearby garage where they were working and saw the two accused running away from the place of the incident. They had chased the accused but when they were shown a knife by one of them, they did not pursue them further, returned to the place of the incident and took the injured to the Police Station. Both the witnesses have stated that they knew the accused and the deceased since before the incident. There was no reason for PWs. 1 and 2 to falsely depose against the accused. The dying declaration - Ex. P8 was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. The evidence discloses that at that time except the doctor no one else was present.
4. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court. In our view, the High Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
5. The bail of the accused is cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the remaining sentence.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free