Velu @ Velmurugan & Ors vs State Tr.Insp.Ofpolice

VELU @ VELMURUGAN & ORS. ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR

OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal, by special leave has been preferred by the

appellants against their conviction and sentence.

2. Altogether six persons were put on trial and in the

present appeal we are concerned with the four appellants who

were Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Appellant No. 1, Velu @

Velmurugan has been found guilty under Sections 302 and

324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and two years respectively, while other

appellants have been held guilty under Section 324 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 2

imprisonment for two years.

3. Prosecution commenced on the basis of the report

given by PW-1, Subramani before the Sub-Inspector of Police

on 6th of March, 2002 at 1.00 A.M. at JIPMER Hospital,

Pondicherry. According to the informant, three acres of land

situated in his village was leased out to his family by its owner

Ranga Iyer 40 years ago and since then they were cultivating

the same. In the year 1985, according to the prosecution,

Balasundaram (since acquitted) who happens to be the father

of Appellant No. 1, Velu purchased the aforesaid land from

Ranga Iyer and asked the informant and his family members

to vacate the same but they did not accede to his request.

Instead they filed civil suit claiming right over the land which

is pending adjudication before the court. Prosecution case

further is that informant's elder brother Narayanswami was

done to death by men of Balasundaram in the year 1993 due

to the aforesaid dispute. It is the case of the prosecution that

on 5th of March, 2002, the informant came from Chennai

where he was working as a Junior Assistant in Survey

Department to his village. There Appellant No. 1, Velu met

him and asked him to see that his brother Ramachandran

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 3

vacate the land failing which he will meet the same fate as

that of his brother Narayanswami. Thereafter, according to

the prosecution, the informant returned to his home, took

food and left for Chennai along with his bother

Ramachandran and when reached village Kandamanadi,

opposite Sudhakar Engineering Workshop, Appellants Velu,

Magesh, Ramakrishnan and Subramani along with another

accused (since acquitted) came in a group armed with knives

and casurina sticks. It has been alleged that Appellant No. 1,

Velu gave knife blow on the head of Ramachandran whereas

Appellant No. 4, Subramani caused injury on his left hand. It

was protested by the informant, whereupon Appellant No. 1,

Velu caused injury on his ankle and knee and appellant

Ramakrishnan beat him with the stick on his left shoulder

and right knee. Appellant Subramani is alleged to have given

a stick blow on the informant's right arm. After assaulting

Ramachandran and the informant the accused persons fled

away from the place of occurrence. Injured were taken to the

Villupuram Government Hospital where after initial

treatment, they were referred to JIPMER Hospital,

Pondicherry for further treatment but Ramachandran died on

way to the hospital and was pronounced dead by the doctors

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 4

at the JIPMER Hospital.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, case under

Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 was registered against

the appellants and other two accused persons (since

acquitted). After usual investigation police submitted charge-

sheet and ultimately the appellants along with two other

accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions to

face trial. Appellants denied to have committed any offence

and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the charge the

prosecution examined altogether 21 witnesses besides a large

number of documents were exhibited.

5. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW-1,

Subramani, and the dying declaration of the deceased

Ramachandran recorded by PW-19, Dr. Balasubramaniyan

held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case

beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants and the

accused Mahalingam but acquitted Balasundram of all the

charges leveled against him. On appeal the High Court set

aside the conviction of Mahalingam and maintained the

conviction of Appellant No. 1, Velu under Sections 302 and

324 of the Indian Penal Code but set aside the conviction of

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 5

Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and that of Appellant No. 4 under Section 302/149 of

the Indian Penal Code but convicted them under Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years. That is how the

appellants are before us.

6. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the appellants submits that there is inordinate

delay in lodging the first information report and in view of the

admitted animosity between the parties, false implication of

the appellants cannot be ruled out. He points out that

according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place

at 5.30 P.M. on 5th of March, 2002 whereas the report which

led to the registration of the first information report was given

between 1200 hrs. to 1300 hrs in the night of 5th/6th of March,

2002. This delay, according to the Senior Counsel, itself is

sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution. It has been

pointed out that PW-1, Subramani and the deceased

Ramachandran while being taken to the hospital had crossed

various police stations but they did not give any report of the

incident.

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 6 We do not find any substance in the submission of the

learned Senior Counsel. The occurrence has taken place at

about 5.30 P.M. on 5th of March, 2002 in which PW-1,

Subramani and the deceased Ramachandran sustained

serious injuries. They were taken to the Government Hospital

at Villupuram where they were examined by PW-19, Dr.

Balasubramanian at 5.50 P.M. and 5.55 P.M. and after giving

initial treatment they were referred to JIPMER Hospital at

Pondicherry. In a situation like this when PW-1 had

sustained nine injuries and the deceased Ramachandran had

sustained multiple injuries, the normal conduct of human

being would be to save their lives and rush them to the

hospital and in that state of mind it is not expected that they

would first make an effort to lodge report to the police. It is

worth mentioning here that when Sub-Inspector of Police

came to know about the incident, he first went to the

Villupuram Government Hospital and thereafter to JIPMER

Hospital at Pondicherry and it is in the hospital that PW-1,

Subramani given report to the police. Therefore, in our

opinion, the delay in lodging the first information in no way

affects the credibility of the case of the prosecution.

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 7 Mr. Balasubramanian, then contends that in view of the

admitted animosity between the parties, the conviction of the

appellants on the basis of the solitary eye-witness PW-1,

Subramani is not fit to be sustained. He submits that the

evidence of PW-1, Subramani is not in conformity with the

dying declaration of the deceased Ramachandran recorded by

PW-19, Dr. Balasubramanian. According to him, to sustain

conviction on the basis of a solitary eye-witness, said witness

has to be wholly reliable. We do not find any substance in

this submission of Mr. Balasubramanian also. PW-1,

Subramani is an eye-witness to the occurrence and he has

given in detail the role played by each of the appellants. PW-

19, Dr. Balasubramanian who had examined him immediately

after the occurrence at 5.55 P.M. at Government Hospital,

Villupuram had found nine injuries on his person. Therefore,

his presence at the time of occurrence cannot be ruled out.

He has supported the case of the prosecution in all material

particulars. PW-19, Dr. Balasubramanian has clearly stated

in his evidence that while he examined the deceased

Ramachandran at 5.55 P.M. in the hospital, he disclosed to

him that five known persons which included Appellant Nos. 1

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 8

to 3, took part in the occurrence and caused injury. We are of

the opinion that the evidence of PW-1, Subramani is wholly

reliable. Further evidence of PW-19, Dr. Subramanian, who

recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Ramachandran

also lends support to the case of the prosecution. We are of

the opinion that the High Court committed no error in relying

on the evidence of PW-1, Subramani and PW-19, Dr.

Subramanian to sustain the conviction of the appellants.

It is worth mentioning here that after we had pronounced the

judgment Ms. Swarupa Reddy, Advocate informed us that

acquitted accused in this case Balasundram who happens to

be the father of Appellant No. 1, Velu, wants to address us.

We permitted him to do so and while making submission he

handed over written submission making request for a CBI

inquiry to bring out the truth. The submission made has no

bearing in the facts of the present case.

7. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

and it is dismissed accordingly.

...............................................J.

(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 9

................................................J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI,

APRIL 27, 2011.