Holding

Non‑production of the FIR book does not, by itself, defeat the prosecution, and the convictions are upheld based on credible corroborative evidence.

Summary

The case arose from a caste‑based election dispute in Melavalavu village where six Dalits were murdered and forty persons were charged, seventeen of whom were convicted under IPC sections 302, 149 and 34 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants challenged their convictions on the ground that the First Information Report (FIR) book was not produced, alleging that the FIR was fabricated and that key witnesses were hostile. The Supreme Court held that the non‑availability of the FIR book alone does not invalidate the prosecution, noting that the investigating officer had acted promptly and that the FIR could not be a bogus document. The Court found the eye‑witness testimony, including that of injured witnesses, to be credible and corroborated by other evidence, and reiterated that a hostile witness’s evidence is not automatically discarded. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The non‑production of the FIR book and alleged discrepancies in the FIR, whether they warrant setting aside the convictions.
Whether the FIR is a decisive document whose irregularities can invalidate the entire prosecution case.
Whether evidence of a hostile witness can be disregarded in total.
Whether the corroborative evidence of eye‑witnesses is sufficient to sustain convictions despite FIR issues.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154(1)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 468
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 34
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Subjects

FIRnon‑production of FIRhostile witnesscaste violenceelection disputeIPC 302Section 149Section 34SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Actevidence appraisalSupreme Court of India

Judgment

•1
~

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 385
-:::\

- " A ALAGARSAMY AND ORS.
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF
A

POLICE
(
• (Criminal Appeal No. 1984 of 2008)
B
OCTOBER 22, 2009
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
• ~ ~

Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.149/s.34 - Election
dispute - Inter-community clash - Armed assault - 40 c
accused - Six deceased - Conviction of accused-appellants
by Courts below - Challenged, on grounds that the
prosecution case was suspicious, particularly in view of non-
production of FIR book - Held: Non-availability of FIR Book,
-- \ by itself, cannot persuade the Court to throw the entire
prosecution case - On facts, the Investigating Officer acted
D

diligently and quickly and, therefore, confusion regarding the
FIR was not such a discrepancy, which would taint the FIR with
illegality - The evidence of eye-witnesses, which included
injured eye-witnesses, was supported and corroborated by E
'\ other witnesses and such evidence could not be disturbed or
ignored for the mere reason that FIR Book was not produced
_. t or that there was doubt regarding the names of accused
persons - lnspite of discrepancies about non-availability of
the FIR Book, confusion about the FIR, some inconsistencies F
in evidence of the complainant, there was ample evidence
regarding guilt of the appellants - Conviction of appellants
accordingly upheld.

.., FIR - Importance and appreciation of - Held: FIR
provides corroboration to the evidence of the maker thereof -
- It provides direction to Investigating Officer and necessary
clues about the crime and the perpetrator thereof - However,
G

no universal rule that if FIR is found to be with discrepancies,
I 385
(,_
H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the whole prosecution case has to discarded.
Witness - Hostile witness -- Held: Merely because a
witness is declared hostile, whole of his evidence is not liable
_. to be thrown away.
B According to the prosecution, on account of election
dispute, the accused persons committed the murder of
six persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community
by assaulting them with various weapons while they were
travelling in a bus. Three persons, i.e. PW1, 2 and 3, were
C allegedly injured in the incident.

17 of the 40 accused, i.e. the accused-appellants ;'
were convicted by the Courts below under Section 302
rlw Section 1491Section 34 IPC.
D In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the
whole prosecution case was liable to be thrown as being
suspicious and the evidence was bound to be rejected,
particularly in view of non-production of FIR book without
any plausible reason, and that the Courts below erred in l-
E relying upon the prosecution witnesses and convicting /
I
the appellants.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

F HELD: 1.1. PW-1 had lodged a complaint with PW-47
(the Investigating Officer) with a graphic description of
the assault. The witness himself was injured and with
great difficulty, had gone to the hospital on a bicycle. It
is obvious that the fear-stricken witness, who had seen

,..
6 persons being slaughtered ruthlessly, had with great
G difficulty managed to run away in an injured condition to
the hospital and getting the cue of the whole incident, the /
Investigating Officer went and recorded his complaint
there in the hospital itself barely within one and half hours
from the incident. That certainly would have taken some
H
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 387
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

_, time and without wasting any time further, the said FIR A
was sent not only to the Police Station, but the copies
thereof were sent immediately to the Magistrate. It could
not be imagined that in such a short time, a fake FIR can
be prepared with graphic description, not only of the
incident, but the occurrences which took place prior to B
the incident and subsequent thereto also, with the names
of the accused persons, the weapons handled by them
..... .,, and the role played by them, individually, as well as,
collectively. PW-1 had written the complaint, duly signed
by him, which complaint, without any waste of time, was c
sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which the
printed FIR was registered and then a copy thereof was
sent to the Magistrate instantaneously. It completely rules
out the FIR being a bogus document or a doctored
. . document. [Para 13] [403-E-H; 404-A-E] D
1.2. Considering the unprecedented nature of the
prosecution, the chaos that it caused in the otherwise
peaceful life of the village and the enormousness of the
whole affair, the number of persons murdered, the
number of witnesses collected and the enormousness of E
the investigation, one cannot blame the investigating
agency and the prosecution for not being able to trace
~- out the FIR Book. There are always wheels within the
wheels and, therefore, there can also be possibility of
some interested person, secreting the said FIR Book, F
though in the absence of any concrete or positive
evidence, one would not be justified in so holding.
However, possibility of such eventuality cannot be ruled
out altogether, still the question is whether the non-
availability of the FIR Book, by itself, could invite the G
_.. I suspicious glance from the Court. That circumstance, by
itself, will not persuade this Court to throw the whole
prosecution case. [Para 14] [404-F-H; 405-A]
I I

1.3. Law and order in the village was the prime
H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A concern of the concerned Revenue Officer, who sent two \- v
reports. It was not his task to investigate the offence. He
was merely reporting the prevailing situation in his village
to his superiors as per his duty. Therefore, merely
because the names of the accused persons did not
B figure in his report, would not matter. By these reports,
the Revenue Officer merely did his duty of informing his
Collector, the prevalent situation, which was undoubtedly
tense. Therefore, the non-mention of those names in the ~ .,..
aforementioned reports, would be of no consequence.
c Similarly, for the report by the Collector to the Secretary,
the same comment is applicable. The Collector was not
a man on the spot. He was merely acting on the basis of
the report sent to him by the local officer. Therefore, his
report is also of no consequence. All the three reports
would be of no consequence, as the two concerned ~ _,._
D
Officers had nothing to do with the investigation of the
offence. PW-47 had acted diligently and quickly and,
therefore, the confusion regarding the FIR could not be ..
such a discrepancy, which would taint the FIR with
illegality. [Para 16] [406-G-H; 407-A-F]
E
1.4. Merely because doubts are raised about the FIR
and the nature of prosecution case, that by itself, would
not be fatal to the prosecution case. The FIR is not a be- + 'it'

all and end-all of the matter, though it is a very important
F document. In most of the cases, the FIR provides
corroboration to the evidence of the maker thereof. It
provides a direction to the Investigating Officer and the
necessary clues about the crime and the perpetrator
thereof. Though a concocted FIR, wherein some
G innocen't persons are deliberately introduced as the
accused persons, raises a reasonable doubt about the
\ .....
prosecution story, however, a vigilant, competent and
searching investigation can despoil all the doubts of the
Court and on the basis of the evidence led before the
H Court, the Court can weigh the inconsistencies in the FIR
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 389
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

and the direct evidence led by the prosecution. It is not A
a universal rule that once FIR is found to be with
discrepancies, the whole prosecution case, as a rule, has
to be thrown. Such can never be the law. [Paras 17 and
18] [408-F-H;409-A-B]
8
1.5. The importance of the FIR Book cannot be
under-estimated. At the same time, however, if the
investigating agency is able to collect reasonable
evidence against the accused persons and such
evidence stands the scrutiny of the Court, then such a c
discrepancy, as shown in that case, need not be fatal.
The High Court has precisely taken that view. The
reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order
are cogent and correct. The High Court was correct in its
finding that the evidence of eye-witnesses, which 0
included injured eye-witnesses, was supported and
corroborated by the other witnesses and such evidence

- could not be disturbed or ignored for the mere reason
that FIR Book was not produced or that there was doubt
regarding the names of the accused persons, which were E
to be found in the complaint. If the argument to the effect
that a suspicious and doubtful FIR would have the effect
of throwing out the whole prosecution case, is accepted,
then there would be no necessity of leading any
evidence. The correct view would be to weigh all the
situations including the discrepancies found in the FIR, F
as also the other evidences made available before the
Court and after carefully appreciating the same, to come
to the correct conclusion. [Para 18] [409-A-B; D-H] _ - -------·-·

Sevi & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 198~ Suppl. SCC G
43, distinguished.
... f
State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy 1999 (8) SCC
715; Nirmal Singh v. State of Bihar 2005 (9) SCC 725;
Sanganagouda A. v. Veeranagouda v. State of Karnataka
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 2005(12) sec 468, relied on.
\-
2.1. In the present case, as many as 11 witnesses ""
were examined by the prosecution, which included 3
injured witnesses. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was
of paramount importance, as they were the injured eye-
B
witnesses. The other eye-witnesses were PWs 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10 and 11. Though some of them turned hostile,
however, on the basis of the appreciation of these
witnesses, the case against the appellants was accepted
by the High Court. The evidence of PW-47, the "' '"'
c Investigating Officer, has rightly been believed by the
High Court. The evidence of PW-23, who was the
Assistant Duty Officer of the Casualty Ward, was also
extremely important and provide corroboration to the
evidence of PW-1. Much was said against PW-1, who was
·o declared hostile at the fag end of his cross-examination.
+- -
However, the law is well settled that merely because the
witness is declared as hostile witness, whole of his
evidence. is not liable to be thrown away. [Para 20] [410-
...
C-G; 411-C]
E
2.2. The High Court was right in its -appreciation of
the evidence of PW1 and the acceptance thereof. It
considered the whole matter in details and recorded its
finding that inspite of the discrepancies about non- ....
F availability of the FIR Book, the confusion about the FIR,
some inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1, there was
ample evidence available to coma to the conclusion
regarding the guilt of the appellants. The findings of the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court are correct findings
in law. [Para~. 20, 21 and 22] [411-D-E; 412-A-C]
G
Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka 1980 (1) SCC 30;
\ ....
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa 1976 (4) SCC 233
and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana 1976 (1) SCC 389,
relied on.
H
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 391
DY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
A
Case Law Reference :

1981 Suppl. SCC 43 distinguished Para 6

1999 (8) sec 715 relied on Para 15

2005 (9) sec 125 relied on Para 16 B

2005(12) sec 468 relied on Para 16

1980 (1) sec 30 relied on Para 19

1976 (4) sec 233 relied on Para 19
c
1976 (1) sec 389 relied on Para 19

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1984 of 2008.

From the Judgment & Order dated 19.04.2006 of the High D
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 803, 863
and 871 of 2001.

Altaf Ahmad, K.K. Mani, Ankit Swarup and R. Manika Raj,
for the Appellants. E
V. Kanagaraj, P.V. Saravana Raja and S. Thananjayan, for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of
the appellants, namely, Alagarsamy, original accused No. 1 (A-
1), Ponniah, original accused No. 3 (A-3), Jothi, original
accused No. 4 (A-4), Manikandan, original accused No. 5 (A-
5), Andichami, original accused No. 7 (A-7), Manoharan, G
original accused No. 8 (A-8), Renganathan, original accused
No. 9 (A-9), Markandan, original accused No. 11 (A-11 ),
Rasam @ Ayyavu, original accused No. 12 (A-12),
Sakkaraimurthy, original accused No. 13 (A-13), Alaghu,
original accused No. 14 (A-14), Rajendran, original accused H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A No. 15 (A-15), Sekar, original accused No. 18 (A-18),
Chockanathan, original accused No. 20 (A-20), Selvam, original "t- v
accused No. 21 (A-21), Chinna Odugan@ Chinna Ulunthan,
original accused No. 22 (A-22), Ramar, original accused No.
40 (A-40). All these accused persons were convicted by the
B Trial Court, whose judgment was confirmed by the High Court.
All of them were convicted for the offences under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
called "IPC" for short) and/or Section 149 IPC alongwith other
persons on the allegation that they had committed murder of ... ~

c as many as six persons belonging to Adidravida (a Scheduled
Caste) community on 30.6.1997. Basically, the char_ge-against
all the 40 accused persons, who were, tried, was that they were
inimical with the persons of Adidravida community in the Village
Melavalavu, as there was an election dispute. This dispute
arose on account of the election of Adidravida community
D ,.__ ,_
person being elected to the post of Pradhan (President), which
was not liked by the Caste Hindus. Ultimately, in order to wreck
avenges against the people of Adidravida community, an
unlawful assembly was formed near a shop in the Village
..
Melavalavu and the persons belonging to Adidravid~ community
E were attacked. The further allegation is that some of the
Adidravida community persons including the Pradhan and other
office bearers had gone to Madurai to meet the Government
officials in pursuance of their demands and while they were ~'
i '
returning by bus, some of the accused persons entered into the
F bus, armed, and when the bus came in the Village Melavalavu
near Tedi Shop, accused persons who had travelled in the bus
and others who had gathered near the spot, assaulted the
persons belonging to Adidravida community including the
Pradhan and the other office bearers of the Panchayat and
G murdered as many as six persons belonging to Adidravida
community. Various charges were levelled against 40 persons
including the charge under Sections 148 IPC, 302 read with )> ~

Section 149 IPC, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 302
substantively, as also the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
H
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 393
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of A
-J Atrocities) Act, 1989. As many as 17 persons were held guilty
by the Sessions Judge under Sections 148 IPC and also under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC alongwith offences under
some other Sections. Three appeals were filed at the instance
of the accused persons. All the appeals were disposed of by B
a common judgment of the High Court, dismissing all the
appeals and that is how the appellants are before us by way
of the present appeal, challenging their conviction and the
.. ~
sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by
the High Court. c
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was as follows.

3. The gory incident which took place, had its seeds sown
;;. in mid 1996, when Melavalavu Village Panchayat was declared
to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste people. This was not D
..-, ""' liked by the caste Hindus of the Village, generally belonging to
Ambalakara community and thus, an inimical feeling was being
nurtured by the people of this community against the Adidravida
persons. So much so that when the elections were declared in
the year 1996, some of the houses belonging to the members E
of the Scheduled Caste were burnt. The election was
conducted on 31.12.1996 and one Scheduled Caste candidate
namely Murugesan (Deceased No. 1) was elected as President
>
of Melavalavu Panchayat. Even before this election, twice the
election had to be cancelled, as on both occasions~ the whole F
>
election process was thwarted by the caste Hindus.

4. On the fateful day, Murugesan (deceased No. 1),
Mookan, Vice President (deceased No. 2), Chelladurai
==(
(deceased No. 5), Sevagamoorthi (deceased No. 3) and some
others had gone to Collector's Office, Madurai for claiming G
.. -t
compensation for the damage caused to the houses of three
persons, which houses were burnt. They could not meet the
Collector, as he was not available, therefore, one Kanchivanam
(PW-12) was asked to wait in their office and the others
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A boarded the bus from Madurai. Prosecution alleged that one
Krishnan (PW-1) was also travelling by the said bus. When the \~

bus reached Melavalavu, one Kumar (PW-2) and Chinnaiya
(PW-3) got at the bus and at that time, 5 accused persons,
namely, Algarsamy (A-1), Doraipandi (A-2), Jothi (A-4),
B Manikandan (A-5) and Manivasagam (A-6) boarded the bus.
Prosecution alleges that they were armed. When the bus
reached Village Melavalavu, Doraipandi (A-2) shouted at R.
Nagaraju (PW-14), the Driver, to stop the bus. The Driver (PW-
14) stopped the bus and at that time, all the accused persons ~ ~

c surrounded the bus with weapons. They started murderous
assault on Murugesan (deceased No. 1) and others, who were
in the bus, as also some others, who were in the crowd. It has
come in the evidence that Murugesan was beheaded and his
head was carried by Algarsamy (A-1 ). This incident was seen
by Krishnan (PW-1), Kumar (PW-2) and Chinnaiyya (PW-3),
D
who were also injured, having been assaulted by some of the ~ ...
accused persons. The incident was also witnessed by Moorthy
(PW-4), Periyavar (PW-5), Palani (PW-6), Ganesan (PW-7),
Yeghadesi (PW-8), Mayavar (PW-9), Kalyani (PW-10). and
Karuppan (PW-11). Grief and fear stricken Krishnan (PW-1),
E Kumar (PW-2) and Chinnaiyya (PW-3), who were injured,
managed to reach Melur Government Hospital on bicycle. They
were given first-aid and were provided transport for being taken
to Madurai Government Hospital. The incident came to the .
knowledge of Rajshekharan (PW-47), Inspector of Police at "'
F about 5.30 p.m. He reached the Hospital, recorded the
statement of Krishnan (PW-1) and on the basis of the same,
registered Crime No. 508 of 1997 for offences under Sections
147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 IPC, as also under Section 3(1 )(x)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of !'

G Atrocities) Act, 1989. He dispatched the copies of the First
Information Report (FIR) to the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, as
also to his superior Dy. Superintendent of Police, District Crime t _...
Branch, Madurai. The DSP took up the investigation, formed
a special team and reached the spot without wasting any time
H and commenced the investigation. Inquest Panchanamas and
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 395
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

Spot Observation Panchanamas were prepared. Blood stained A
I
~"
articles were seized from the bus and from other places. The
bodies were also sent for Post Mortem. The blood stained
articles were sent to the forensic science laboratory and after
completing the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed
"'-
on 25.9.1997. At the Trial, as many as 50 witnesses were B
examined and 121 documents were got proved. 55 material
objects were also produced. 2 defence witnesses were
examined and as many as 19 documents were got proved by
~ . the defence, they being D-1 to D-19. The accused pleaded
ignorance, however, as has been stated, as many as 17 c
persons came to be convicted by the Sessions Judge. Their
appeals were also dismissed by the High Court. Before the
High Court, some private individuals, who were the witnesses,
also had filed the revisions, challenging the acquittal of few
accused persons. However, the High Court, by a common D
~ -<
judgment, dismissed those revisions. Thus, we are left with the
appellants before us.

5. Shri Altaf Ahmad, Learned Senior Counsel led the
arguments on behalf of the appellants, while Shri Kanagaraj,
E
Learned Senior Counsel represented the State.

6. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, firstly, pointed out the order passed by this Court,
.>
whereby the prosecution was directed to produce the FIR Book
.... of the Melavalavu Police Station, in which the FIR dated .F
30.6.1997 relating to Crime No. 508 of 1997 was reflected. He
then pointed out that the prosecution had not produced the said
FIR Books nor was there any plausible explanation for this non-
compliance. Based upon this argument, Shri Altaf Ahmad
further invited our attention to the two reports, they being, firstly, G
the report by Tahsildar to Collector of the said date and the
.. ., second being the one authored by District Collector, Madurai
sent to Secretary, Public Law and Order Department,
Secretariat at Chennai. Our attention was specifically invited
to the fact that though the Crime No. 508 of 1997 was reflected H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A in the said reports and though all the facts were also reflected
regarding the ghastly incident alongwith the names of the '
'1\--
deceased persons and injured persons, yet the names of the
accused persons against whom the FIR was filed, were
conspicuously absent. We were taken through the reports,
B particularly, report of the Tahsildar to Collector being Exhibit D- ,,,
13 and it was pointed <;>Ut by the Learned Senior Counsel that
there was a graphic description of the incident in that report.
The background of the incident was also reflected, but
excepting the name of Duraipandi (A-2) no other name of the ~ loo

c accused persons was mentioned. The other accused persons
were referred to as "Fourteen others". The Learned Senior
Counsel pointed out that in Exhibit D-18, which was a report
from the Collector to the Secretary and D-19, which was a
second report from the Collector to the Secretary, reporting the
law and order situation in Melavalavu on account of this incident, .J

D
the names of the accused were not to be seen. The Learned ;... ...
Senior Counsel also invited our attention that it is only in the
report dated 17.7.1997 that the Tahsildar has reported the
names of as many as 34 accused persons. From this, the
Learned Senior Counsel suggests that, in fact, the names of
E the accused persons were not known to anybody even on that
day nor were they reported to the Police Station. The Learned
Senior Counsel, therefore, mocked at the prosecution's claim
that the names of the accused persons or as the case may be,
~-
majority of them, became known to the investigating agency
F immediately after the incident through the statement of Krishnan
(PW-1 ). Our attention then was invited to the evidence of
Krishnan (PW-1 ), the injured eye-witness, Rajshekharan (PW-
47), the Police Officer, who got the offence registered in the
Police Station and Nambi (PW-18), the Tahsildar, who was the
G author of the report regarding the law and order situation in
Village Melavalavu. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel
urged that the basic story, as revealed in the so-called FIR, ). ...
Exhibit P-53 was itself shrouded with mystery and there was
absolutely nojustification for accepting the claim of prosecution
H that the names of the accused persons became available to
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 397
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

-· the investigating agency almost immediately. The Learned A
Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that under such
circumstances, the FIR was liable to be thrown out on this
ground alone and the FIR had lost all its credibility, particularly,
because the deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecuting
agency to suppress the FIR Book, which though demanded B
right from Trial Court to this Court, was not supplied by the
prosecution nor was its mysterious absence explained.

7. As a sequel to his argument, it was urged that once the
FIR itself becomes a doubtful document, then the whole c
prosecution becomes doubtful and it was obvious that the
names of the accused persons surfaced based on imagination.
It was further pointed out that the First Information Report was
inconsistent with the station diary as the serial number given
to that FIR did not tally. In this behalf, our attention was drawn 0
to crime Nos. 506-507 which though earlier, bore subsequent
numbers as compared to crime No. 508. It was also pointed
out that the Tahsildar, Shri K. Pullani who had made the report
Ex. D-13 had turned hostile, so also the so-called author of the
FIR, Krishnan (PW-1) also turned hostile was of no use. The E
Learned Counsel also pressed into service the writ petition filed
-{
1 by Krishnan (PW-1) wherein he had alleged that the real culprits
were left out and were never proceeded against by the
investigating agency, meaning thereby the present accused
persons had in fact nothing to do with the incident. Our attention
was also drawn to the evidence of R. Santhanakrishnan (PW- F
13), the bus Conductor and R. Nagaraju (PW-14), who was the
Driver. It was pointed out that these two persons claimed that
they had reported the incident much earlier in the same police
station. On the basis of this material, the Learned Counsel
contended that the whole prosecution case was liable to be G
thrown as being suspicious and the evidence was bound to be
rejected and the Courts below had erred in relying upon the
prosecution witnesses and convicting the accused persons.
The Learned Counsel heavily relied on the judgment reported
as Sevi & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu in 1981 Suppl. SCC H
'--

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. .
~
1

A 43 wherein this Court had thrown the prosecution case on the ~ -
basis of non-production of the FIR Book. :

8. As against this Learned Senior Counsel Shri Kanagraj
took us through the judgment of the Courts below as well as
the relevant evidence. According to Shri Kanagraj, the incident -~
B
had taken place in broad day light, wherein as many as six dalit
persons were slaughtered and, therefore, the eye witnesses
had the full opportunity to watch the gory incident. He pointed
)' ~
out that though some witnesses had turned hostile, yet there
was enough evidence on record to convict the accused
c persons and they were rightly convicted. According to Learned
Senior Counsel, the FIR was not a be-all and end-all of the
matter and in fact, the report made by the Tahsildar to the
Collector and the two reports made by the Collector Jo the
Secretary were irrelevant and the ymole FIR could not be tested ,.
D on the backdrop of those reports. He pointed out that these two
\-

officers (Tahsildar and Collector) had nothing to do with the
investigation and merely because the names of the accused
persons were not mentioned in these reports, it did not affect
the prosecution case at all. The Learned Senior Counsel also .~
E pointed out further that the situation was tense, inasmuch as,
six dalit persons had been slaughtered, due to which there was L
widespread violence in the village and under such ,....
i

circumstances, if the FIR was recorded in some other book ~ ~-

than the regular book, that by itself, did not diminish the value
F of the FIR. It was further pointed out that the evidence of
Krishnan (PW-1) was not liable to be thrown altogether, merely
because he had turned hostile and it was clear that he turned
hostile only at the last stage of cross-examination and,
therefore, the part of the evidence was rightly accepted by the ...
G Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

9. Shri Kanagraj, the Learned Senior Counsel did fairly ~ ~

accept that the FIR book could not be produced, however, he
pointed out that there was an affidavit on record, explaining that
in spite of the honest efforts, the said FIR book could not be
-~

H
r-
t.-
'
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
r'

A 11. On these rival contentions, it is to be seen whether the
\-
whole prosecution case is liable to be discarded on the basis
of the aforementioned irregularities, which mostly pertain to the
FIR. The importance of FIR cannot be underestimated, as it is
first version, on the basis of which the investigation proceeds.
B This Court, has from time to time, emphasized the importance
of the FIR and as such, there can be no question about the
necessity to examine the credibility of the FIR. In the present
case, by its order dated 8.3.2007, this Court held that :-
:> ~
r
'
~
"The respondent State is directed to place before this
c Court FIR Diary within two weeks. Post the matter after two
weeks for final hearing on any non-miscellaneous day."
-
This was obviously on the prayer to that effect made by
the defence, inasmuch as the defence, all throu.gh contended ..
D that everything was not alright with the document of FIR. It was ).- ....'
the basic contention of the defence before the High Court, as
also before us that the FIR in this case was not a genuine
document. This was based on the contention that the FIR Book
was not made available to the defence, though was asked for.
E Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that the substance of FIR,
·1.·

when it is registered, has to reflect in the FIR Book maintained r
by the Police Station. Our attention was drawn to Exhibits D-9
and D-10, bearing Crime No. 506 of 1997 and Crime No. 507
of 1997 respectively and it was pointed out that they were given
the numbers 614642 and 614643 respectively. It was then
F pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants .....
~

that Crime No. 508 of 1997, vide which the present FIR was
registered, however, bears No. 610327 and, therefore,
according to the defence, it is obvious that the FIR in this case
was not taken in the regular FIR Book. According to the defence,
.,.
G this is the first suspicious circumstance. The Learned Senior
i
Counsel suggested that the real FIR might have been 1- _.. ·¥
~

suppressed and in its place, the present FIR might have been .. 1
~~
substituted. All this is on account of the circumstance that in the
present FIR, on the basis of which the present prosecution has
H
)

''
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 401
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

proceeded, the names of 34 accused persons are reflected A
-' and the present appellants' names are found in those 34
accused persons. Perhaps that is why the Court had ordered
that "this diary of FIR, or as the case may be, FIR, to be
produced before us".
B
12. Shri Kanagaraj, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent State, however, very frankly and fairly admitted that
the said Fl R Book is not available. Our attention was invited to
.,. • the Counter Affidavit placed on record, sworn by one S. Maran,
working as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Melu.r Police Sub c.
Division, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu, wherein t.he Deponent
has referred to such mix up of the numbers and in his reply to
the Ground No. XXX and XXXI, pointed out, that Exhibit P-53,
which is the present FIR, was the only FIR in this case. The
Affidavit further goes on to say that the Serial number of the D
.. _, FIR has also been proved. However, the Deponent asserts that
merely because the preceding Crime Numbers do not tally, it
cannot be concluded that the earlier FIR has been burked. It is
then pointed out in that affidavit that Krishnan (PW-1), who is
the author of the FIR, though had turned hostile, had not denied E
lodging of complaint to the Police by him, marked as Exhibit
P-1 and this is the basis of the printed FIR (Exhibit P-53), which
bore S.No. 610327. It is then asserted that though Exhibit D-9
__.,.. ; and D-10 carried out S.Nos. 614642 and 614643, that by itself,
did not falsify the prosecution case, since Krishnan (PW-1) was
not confronted with this position that he had given any other FIR F
than the one which has surfaced in this case. On this basis, Shri
Kanagaraj, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
suggested that because of the prevailing tension and the
terrible chaos, which had been caused due to slaughtering of
6 Dalits and the further violence which followed the unfortunate G
incident, the Investigating Officer might have used a different
~. . ~ .r Book for recording the present FIR. The Learned Senior
/• Counsel argued that the concerned FIR is based on complaint
Exhibit P-1, which was given to Rajshekharan (Investigating
Officer) (PW-47) only in the hospital. When we see the original H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~
A FIR, it is apparent. that the date and time of information
mentioned in the same is 30.6.1997 at 20.00 Hrs., whereas
when we see the original complaint, it is recorded at 18.30 Hrs.
'·•·
in Madurai Rajaji Hospital and is sent to the Melur Police
Station at 20.00 Hrs. when the offence is registered. It is a long
B complaint, in which Krishnan (PW-1) has specifically spoken
about the attack at one place. It is stated in the complaint that:-

"When that Bus stopped at Melur Bus Stand, the
Arhbalakara community people of Melavalavu Doraipandi,
• ~

Jayaraman, Ex. President Alagarsamy, Ponniah, Muthuvel
c and Jothi of Nagappanpaddi, Manikandan and our
community people Kumar, :Chinniah boarded in that bus.
When the bus was nearing the Kallukadai Medu Bus Stop,
one Doraipandi was standing an~ shouting near the seat
of the driver. The driver stopped the bus. About 40 persons
D under the leadership of one Ramar, PanchayaLPresident ,...
'>
of Sennagarampatti stood around the bus with aruval and
knife. with them. Alagarsamy who was in the bus,
, ...
questioned Murugesan by saying "you down caste fellow
need the President Post and compensation" and stabbed
E in the shoulder of Murugesan with a lengthy knife.
Ourselves, the injured Murugesan and the passengers r
scattered, deboarded from the bus and ran away.
Alagarsamy who was standing in the backside steps held
the head of Murugesan and cut on his neck and head
.
F repeatedly. The head of Murugesan was beheaded.
. Ramar hacked on the left side head of Raja. Jothi chased
Mookan with aruval in the field side. Manikandan stabbed
in the left side of the neck and left hib of Chelladurai. One
Manivasagam of Malamapatti hacked in the back portion
G of the neck and in the right side ear of Sevugamoorthy.
Sevugamoorthy fell down with alarming sound. Ponniah
hacked on the ear a,nd neck of Boopathy. Jayaraman ·~ ...............,..,

stabbed in the stomach of Boopathy. Doraipandi hacked
\
me in the right shoulder in the back side. Manivasagam,
H Andichamay, Manoharan, Ranganathan, Alagarsamy,
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 403
DY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [VS. SIRPURKAR J.]
Manoharan, Dinakaran, Markandan, Rasam @ Ayyavu, A
Sarkaraimoorthy, Alagu, Rajendran, Baskaran,
Karanthamalai, Sekar, Tamilan, Selvam, Chinna Odungan,
Chockanathan, Elavarsan, Amblam, Sethu, Kalangiam,
Mani, Sevugaperumal and 10 other unidentifiable persons
were there and rounded up the bus with lethal weapons. s
They assaulted Kumar and Chinniah and the above said
injured persons with aruval and patta knife repeatedly.
Alagarsamy holding the head of Murugesan, ran away to
the field of one Paganeri Chettiar in the western side. The
persons who were with lethal weapons threatened one c
Periyavar, Egathesi, Mayavar, Kalyani, Karuppan and the
people from other community by saying that we will kill you
if you come closer to us and to run away back. The persons ,,
who were having the lethal weapons went towards the
western side. The Driver and Conductor of the bus who
0
got afraid of the incident took the vacant bus towards
Melur."

13. Thus, it is obvious that the witness had lodged a
complaint with Rajshekharan (PW-47) with this graphic
description of the assault. The witness himself was injured and E
with great difficulty, had gone to the hospital on a bicycle. When
we visualize the whole scene, it is obvious that the fear-stricken
witness, who had seen 6 persons being slaughtered ruthlessly,
had with great difficulty managed to run away in an injured
condition to the hospital and getting the cue of the whole F
incident, the Investigating Officer went and recorded his
complaint there in the hospital itself barely within one and half
hours from the incident. That certainly would have taken some
time and without wasting any time further, the said FIR was sent
not only to the Police Station, but the copies thereof were sent G
immediately to the Magistrate. The sending of the FIR to the
Magistrate could not be disputed by the defence either before
the Trial and Appellate Court or even before us. Therefore,
thought from any angle, it cannot be imagined that in such a
short time, a fake FIR can be prepared with graphic description, H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A not only of the incident, but the occurrences which took place
prior to the incident and subsequent thereto also, with the
names of the accused persons, the weapons handled by them
and the role played by them, individually, as well~!?. collectively:·
We have very carefully seen the evidence of Krishnan (PW-1).
s We do not find in his evidence, any suggestion that he had not
made the said complaint to Rajshekharan (PW-47) in the
hospital. There can be no dispute that the witness, at the fag
end of his evidence, was declared hostile. There can also be
no dispute that after the evidence commenced, he went to
c Madras and also filed a Writ Petition. We shall consider that
part of the evidence in the later stage of this judgment, but the
, fact of the matter, which emerges is that the witness had
certainly written the complaint, duly signed by him, which
complaint, without any waste of time, was sent to the Police
Station, on the basis of which the printed FIR was registered
0 > .•
and then a copy thereof was sent to the Magistrate
instantaneously. It completely rules out the FIR being a bogus
document or a doctored document. We have already referred
to an affidavit of Dy. Superintendent of Police, Melur Police Sub
Division, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu, who has given his
E reasons. However, we have also another affidavit on record,
explaining that the said FIR Book was lost and was not
traceable in the Police Station record.

14. Considering the unprecedented nature of this
F prosecution, the chaos that it caused in the otherwise peaceful
life of the Village and the enormousness of the whole affair, the
number of persons murdered, the number of witnesses
collected and the enormousness of the investigation, we cannot
blame the investigating agency and the prosecution for not
G being able to trace out the FIR Book. There are always wheels
within the wheels and, therefore, there can also be possibility
of some interested person, secreting the said FIR Book, though
in the absence of any concrete or positive evidence, we would
not be justified in so holding. However, possibility of such
H eventuality cannot be ruled out altogether, still the question is
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 405
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

whether the non-availability of the FIR Book, by itself, could A
invite the suspicious glance from the Court. In our opinion, that
circumstance, by itself, will not persuade us to throw the whole
prosecution case.

15. This brings us to the other leg of the argument of Shri
8
Altaf Ahmad, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants,
whereby the Learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the
report Exhibit D-13, by Shri K. Pullani, Tahsildar, Melur, which
is the first report regarding the incident, sent by him to the
Collector. Shri Ahmad pointed out that in this report, there is a
detailed description of how the incident took place, the names C
of the persons who lost their lives and the names of 3 persons
who were injured and were admitted in the Melur Government
Hospital. Significantly enough, the name of Krishnan (PW-1) is
to be found in this report also. Our attention was specifically
invited by the Learned Senior Counsel that the report contained D
the basic reasons for these untoward incident. It was also
pointed out that the wounded victim Krishnan (PW-1) had
lodged a complaint with the Melur Police Station and a case
was registered in the Crime No. 508 of 1997. The Learned
Senior Counsel further pointed out that the report says that the E
case was registered against Doraipandi S/o Markandan and
14 others. Thereby the Learned Senior Counsel said that by
_. J that time, thE~ FIR was registered and yet there were no names
mentioned of the accused persons. Our attention was also
invited to Exhibit D-18, which is a report from the District F
Collector to the Secretary, Public (Law and Order) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai, which is of the same date. The Learned
Senior Counsel also pointed out that even this report is totally
silent about the names of the accused persons. Our attention
then was invited to the report of the same date, marked as G
Exhibit D-19, sent by Kasinathan, District Collector, Madurai
to the Secretary to Chief Minister, Chennai and which is a
second report and a more detailed report, as compared to the
earlier report of the Collector. The Learned Senior Counse\
pointed out that excepting the name of Doraipandi and 14 other H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A known persons, the report is silent. Lastly, our attention was also
invited to 0-14, the report dated 17.7.1997, sent by Shri K.
' ....
Pullani, Tahsildar, Melur to the District Collector, Madurai,
where, for the first time, the names of the 34 accused persons
surfaced. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel suggested
B that till 17.7.1997, these responsible Revenue Officers, who
were in charge of the whole law and order situation in the
Village, did not disclose the names of the accused persons.
Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that had the FIR (Exhibit /< )

P-53) been a genuine document; then such thing could not have
c happened and the names of at least those persons who had
surfaced in the complaint of Krishnan (PW-1 ), would certainly
have found place in the report of the Tahsildar, as well as, the
Collector. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the
absence of these names puts the FIR in the darkness of
suspicion. The Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the
0
backdrop of the fact that there is mix up of the Serial numbers
bf the FIR, this situation assumes great importance.

16. We have deeply considered the above mentioned three
reports, as also the contentions raised that coupled with earlier
E circumstance of the FIR Book not being made available, the
whole prosecution story would be rendered extremely
suspicious. We are unable to agree. All the three reports would
be of no consequence, as the two concern~d Officers had l

nothing to do with the investigation of the offence. The mere
F fact that in his (Tahsildar's) report Exhibit· 0-13 and also the
second report, the names of the accused persons did not
figure, does not, in our opinion, amount to a very clinching
circumstance. Law and order in the village was the prime
concern of this Revenue Officer, who sent these two reports. It
G was not his task to investigate the offence. He was merely
reporting the prevailing situation in his village to his superiors
as per his duty. Therefore, merely because the names of the
accused persons did not figure in his report, would not, in our
opinion, matter. It is nobody's case that he was actively
assisting or was directly connected or cooperating with the
H
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 407
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

~1
Investigating Officer. By these reports, he merely did his duty A
.,,,.
of informing his Collector, the prevalent situation, which was
undoubtedly tense. Therefore, the non-mention of those names
in the aforementioned reports, would, in our opinion, be of no
conse~quence. Similarly, for the report by the Collector to the
Secretary, the same comment is applicable. The Collector was B
not a man on the spot. He was merely acting on the basis of
the report sent to him by the local officer. Therefore, his report
is also of no consequence. The High Court has considered
" •. these contentions in Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment
and the High Court has come to the conclusion that the c
contention that original FIR was suppressed and the present
FIR is a concocted FIR, was liable to be rejected. The High
Court, has in its finding, accepted the explanation given by
... Rajshekharan (PW-47) and has recorded his satisfaction on
that explanation. We do not agree with some expression in
-i • D
Para 15 of the impugned judgment, which is to the following

- effect-

"As rightly pointed out, when the entire village was under
the grip of fear on account of 6 murders, that too between
two communities in the same village, it cannot be said that E
the Investigating Officer was sitting idle in doing the
-.. investigation systematically and as per rules."
ma.
We do not think that the Investigating Officer was expected
--.. to act contrary to the rules and we do not think that in the F
investigation, he has acted contrary to the rules. We agree with
the Hi!gh Court's subsequent comment that Rajshekharan (PW-
47) had acted diligently and quickly and, therefore, the confusion
regarcling the FIR could not be such a discrepancy, which would

-'
taint the FIR with illegality. The High Court has correctly relied
G
on thei reported Judgment in the case of State of Karnataka
-f vs. K. Yarappa Reddy [1999 (8) SCC 715], where this Court
observed:-

"But can the above finding (that the station house diary is
not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

" ·•
A evidence in this case? If other evidence, on scrutiny, is ,_
found credible and acceptable, should the Court be ...
influenced by the machinatians demonstrated by the
Investigating· Officer in conducting investigation or in
preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a
8 guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary
area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion
of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend
solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-high settled
~- )>
·that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious
c the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently
of the impact of it. Otherwise, the criminal trial will plummet
to the level of the Investigating Officers ruling the roost. The
Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in
criminal trials over the action taken by Investigating ,,
Officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty
D j ~-
for the wrongs committed by the Investigating Officers in
this case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the
testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the Court
is free to act on it albeit the Investigating Officer's
suspicious role in the case."
E
17. The other decisions relied upon by the High Court, for
example, decision in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2005(9) SCC 725 and Sanganagouda A. vs.
Veeranagouda vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2005(12)
,j,
"
~

F sec 468 also give out the position that merely because doubts _;
are raised about the FIR and the nature of prosecution case,
that by itself, would not be fatal to the prosecution case.

18. After all, the Fl R is not a be-all and end-all of the matter,
though it is undoubtedly, a very important document. In most of
G the cases, the FIR provides corroboration to the evidence of \:_
the maker thereof. It provides a direction to the Investigating t
Officer and the necessary clues about the crime and the

-
perpetrator thereof. True it is that a concocted FIR, wherein
some innocent persons are deliberately introduced as the
H

I:
AlAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 409
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [V.S. SIRPURKAR J.]

accused persons, raises a reasonable doubt about the A
... i
prosecution story, however, a vigilant, competent and searching
investigation can despoil all the doubts of the Court and on the
basis of the evidence led before the Court, the Court can weigh
the inconsistencies in the FIR and the direct evidence led by
the prosecution. It is not a universal rule that once FIR is found B
to be with discrepancies, the whole prosecution case, as a rule,
has to be thrown. Such can never be the law. In the decision
.. .i
relied upon by Shri Altaf Ahmad, Learned Senior Counsel fo~
the appellants in Sevi & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (cited
supra), it is clear that the Court had thrown the prosecution case c
not merely because the FIR was doubtful, but as the Court found
that the prosecution case and the evidence of the eye-
witnesses, even otherwise, was liable to be rejected, as they
were the partisan witnesses. The Court took into account the
dramatic pattern of the evidence of the witnesses and,
.._ D
" ~therefore, thrown the prosecution case because of the non-
availability of the FIR Book. The importance of the FIR Book
cannot be under-estimated. At the same time, however, if the
investigating agency is able to collect reasonable evidence
against the accused persons and such evidence stands the
scrutiny of the Court, then such a discrepancy, as shown in that
E
case, need not be fatal. The High Court has precisely taken that
view. The reasons given by the High Court in Paras 15 to 20
;.
of the impugned order, are the cogent and correct reasons. We
are in complete agreement with the High Court's finding that
the evidence of eye-witnesses, which included injured eye- F
witnesses, was supported and corroborated by the other
witnesses and such evidence could not be disturbed or ignored
for the mere reason that FIR Book was not produced or that
there was doubt regarding the names of the accused persons,
which were to be found in Exhibit P-1 (complaint). Those G
accused persons, against whom the evidence was not
~
+
' acceptable, have been accredited, inspite of their names
figurin~l in the FIR. If the argument of the Learned Senior
Counsel to the effect that a suspicious and doubtful FIR would
have the effect of throwing out the whole prosecution case, is H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A accepted, then there would be no necessity of leading any
-,~
evidence. The correct view would be to weigh all the situations
including the discrepancies found in the FIR, as also the other
evidences made available before the Court and after carefully
appreciating the same, to come to the correct conclusion. That
B is precisely what has been done in this case.

19. In fact, barring the aforementioned argument regarding
the FIR, no arguments were led before us, assailing the
evidence of the eye-witnesses, as also the injured witnesses .•
and the other corroborating circumstances relied on by the
c Courts below.

20. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, which included 3 injured witnesses. The evidence
of Krishnan (PW-1), Kumar (PW-2) andChinnaiya (PW-3) was
D of paramount importance, as they were the injured eye-
witnesses. The other eye-witnesses were Moorthy (PW-4),
Periyavar (PW-5), Palani (PW-6), Ganesan (PW-7), Yeghadesi
(PW-8), Myavar (PW-9), Kalyani (PW-10) and Karuppan (PW-
) 1). We have checked the evidence of these witnesses.
E Though some of them hostile, however, on the basis of the
appreciation of these witnesses, the case against the present
appellants was accepted by the High Court. With these, we
have also considered the evidence of Rajshekharan (PW-47),
the Investigating Officer, who has rightly been believed by the
F High Court. The evidence of Dr. Venkatachalam (PW-23), who
was the Assistant Duty Officer of the Casualty Ward, was also
extremely important and provide corroboration to the evidence
of Krishnan (PW-1). Much was said against Krishnan (PW-1),
who was declared hostile at the fag end of his cross-
examination. He was also taken to Chennai to file a Writ
G
Petition, questioning the correctness of the prosecution.
However, the Courts below have chosen to rely on part of the -t·
evidence. The High Court has noted that his Examination-in-
Chief was recorded on 2.4.2001 and on the same day, he was
cross-examined by the three defence counsel. Then only later,
H
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 411
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [VS. SIRPURKAR J.]

on 26.6.2001, when he was recalled, he was treated as a A
>i
hostile witness. We agree with the comment of the High Court
that the witness was tried to be won-over after his cross
examination. Much was made about Exhibit D-1, which is the
affidavit of Krishnan (PW-1) in the Writ Petition filed by him,
wherein he had stated that he was afraid of the prosecution B
party. Strangely enough, this affidavit was sworn for the first time
after one and half years of the incident. Even in his cross-
., • examination on 2.4.2001, he had stated that he was taken and
his signatures were obtained under threat. He appears to be
a poor villager and his affidavit appears to have been "obtained" c
and there is much to be stated about this affidavit. The High
Court has dealt with it and had chosen to rely on the earlier part
of his evidence. The law is now well settled that merely because
the witness is declared as hostile witness, whole of his evidence
is not liable to be thrown away [See reported decisions in Syed D
'4' " Akbar vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1980 (1) SCC 30,
Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa reported in 1976 (4)
SCC 233 and Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported
in 1976 (1) SCC 389]. We agree with the High Court in its
appreciation of the evidence of this witness and the acceptance
E
thereof. Even the evidence of Palani (PW-6) and Ganesan (PW-
7) was relied upon by the High Court besides the first three
witnesses, though that evidence was rejected by the Trial Court.
;.
The High Court has given good reasons why it has chosen to
accept the evidence of Palani (PW-6) and Ganesan (PW-7).
>
The High Court has also referred to the evidence of Periyavar F
(PW-5), Yeghadesi (PW-8), Mayavar (PW-9) and Kalyani (PW-
10) and has accepted that their evidence corroborate the
evidence of Krishnan (PW-1 ), Kumar (PW-2) and Chinnaiya
(PW-3). Again in Para 45 of the impugned judgment, the High
Court has referred to the aspect of FIR Register and Exhibits G
) + D"'.13 (report of the Tahsildar to Collector), D-18 (report from
"'I the District Collector to Secretary, Public (Law and Order)
Department, Secretariat, Chennai) and D-19 (second report
from the Collector to the Secretary) and had chosen to accept
the explanation given by Rajshekharan (PW-4 7) in his evidence. H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 21. In short, the High Court has considered the whole
matter in details and has recorded its finding that inspite of the \ ...
discrepancies about non-availability of the FIR Book, the
confusion about the principles of FIR, some inconsistencies in
the evidence of Krishnan (PW-1) and the Writ Petition filed by
B him and his affidavit (Exhibit 0-1) therein, there was ample ,.
evidence available to come to the conclusion regarding the guilt
of the appellants.

22. We are convinced that the findings of the Trial Court • ~
,C and the Appellate Court are correct findings in law. We find that
there is no merit in the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.