ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                        [2012] 4 S.C.R. 342


A                ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN
                                   v.
                      STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1315 of 2009)

                            MAY 8, 2012
B
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:

c         s.302 - Accused committing murder of his step mother
    - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by
    trial court, affirmed by High Court - Held: The prosecution
    case is to a very limited extent, based upon circumstantial
    evidence and largely there exists ocular and documentary
    evidence to support the prosecution case - The evidence of
0
    the brother of the deceased, whose presence in the house was
    natural, supported by evidence of t,·,e witnesses, medical
    evidence, the recovery weapon of crime made on disclosure
    statement of accused, the serological reports and the motive
E   for the crime, lead to the irresistible conclusion that the
    accused had committed the crime - The concurrent findings
    of fact recorded by the courts below based on proper
    appreciation of evidence clearly prove the guilt of the accused
    - In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the
    finding of guilt as well as the order of sentence -
F   Circumstantial evidence.

        Criminal Law:

       Motive - Existence of a motive for committing a crime
G is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always a relevant
  factor, which will be taken into consideration by the courts as
  it will render assistance to the courts while analysing the
  prosecution evidence and determining the guilt of the
  accused.

H                                 342
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                    343
                TAMIL NADU
    Evidence Act, 1872:                                             A

     s. 27 - Disclosure statement of accused while in police
custody leading to recovery of weapon of crime - Accused
a/so stating that he stabbed her step mother - Held: Except
the part of the disclosure statement of the accused which led
                                                                    8
to the recovery of the knife, the rest of the statement of the
accused would be inadmissible in evidence as per s. 27.

     Evidence:

     Evidence of sole witness - Held: Court can record a            c
finding of guilt while entirely or substantially relying upon the
statement of the sole witness, provided his statement is
trustworthy, reliable and finds corroboration from other
prosecution evidence.

     Witnesses:                                                     D

     Child witnesses - Stated to have seen their mother being
murdered - Trial court after putting certain questions to them,
did not permit recording of their statements - Held: It has not
been claimed by either party that these two child witnesses         E
should have been examined and that their non-examination
has caused any prejudice to any of the parties in the appeal.

    RELATED WITNESS -     Evidence of deceased's brother -
Every witness, who is related to the deceased cannot be said        F
to be an interested witness who will depose falsely to implicate
the accused - In the instant case, the presence of the witness
at the house of his sister is natural - His evidence is worthy
of credence.

    The appellant was prosecuted for committing the G
murder of his step-mother. The prosecution case was
that the deceased, after the death of her husband and
father of the accused, was enjoying the properties left by
him and collecting the rent from the properties, and
because of this there used to be quarrels between her H
    344      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A and the accused; that on the night of the incident, when
  the deceased was sleeping with her two sons, the
  accused entered the house with a knife and caused
  injuries to her which resulted in her death on the spot;
  that P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, who was sleeping
B outside the house, heard the screams of the victim and
  when he entered the house, he saw the accused coming
  out with a knife in his hand. He found his sister lying in a
  pool of blood. He went to the village headman and also
  to the Sarpanch. He was directed to go to the police
c station where he lodged the FIR. The accused also made
  a confessional statement on the basis of which the
  weapon of crime, viz., a blood stained knife and a blood
  stained shirt were recovered. The trial court convicted the
  accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment
  for life. The High Court upheld the conviction and the
0
  sentence.

         In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was
    contended for the appellant that P.W.1 being the
    interested witness and himself an accused in another
E   murder case, his evidence should not have been relied
    upon by the courts below; and that there was no
    corroboration to the statement of PW1, a number of
    witnesses had turned hostile and there existed serious
    doubt as to the presence of PW1 at the place of
F   occurrence.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. According to PW-1 and as per the case
  of the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place after
G 12 a.m./midnight on 13/14.1.2002. The FIR was registered
  at 0130 hrs. on 14.1.2002. The presence of PW1 at the
  house of his sister can hardly be doubted. He saw the
  accused running away after stabbing his sister and met
  the Sarpanch of the village and then the Police Officer
H within a short period of· occurrence, which facts have
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                345
                TAMIL NADU
been proved from the evidence on record. Keeping in            A
view the close relationship between the parties, there is
no reason to disbelieve PW-1 in this regard. In fact any
suggestion of this kind was not even put to him in the
cross-examination on behalf of the accused. [para 9-10]
[352-E-H; 353-C-D]                                             B

     1.2. PW-1 also stated that on hearing the noise, the
neighbors 'RM', 'R', 'M', 'P' and 'MT' also reached the
place of occurrence. 'RM' and 'M' had not been examined
while 'R', examined as PW-4, and 'MT' as PW-2, were            C
declared hostile. 'P' was examined as PW-3 and he stated
that he was living near the house of the deceased who
had cried loudly and then he went and saw that some
people had come there and the deceased was bleeding
from her injuries. The police had come and they collected      D
the earth from the spot and he signed Exts. P-4 and P-5.
Nothing adverse came on record in the cross-
examination of this witness. PW-3, thus, has not only
supported the case of prosecution, but even provided
due corroboration to the statement of PW-1. [para 11-13]
[353-D-G]                                                      E

     1.3. When the accused was taken into custody, he
made a statement on 17.1.2002 and narrated the complete
history of his family and about his bitter relationship with
the deceased. He stated that he had stabbed the                F
deceased. He also made a disclosure statement upon
which the weapon of crime, i.e. the knife, M.0.6, was
recovered.Except the part of the disclosure statement of
the accused which led to the recovery of the knife, the
rest of the statement of the accused would be                  G
inadmissible in evidence as per s. 27 of the Evidence Act,
1872. The courts, relying upon the admissible part of the
statement of the accused, held that the recovery of knife
had been effected in accordance with law. [para 13,14 and
20] [353-G; 354-A-B-D; 362-F]
                                                               H
    346    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A      2.1. It is incorrect to say that PW1 is the sole and
  interested witness and, therefore, his statement cannot
  be relied upon by the court for returning the finding of
  conviction. It is a settled principle of law that the court
  can record a finding of guilt while entirely or substantially
s relying upon the statement of the sole witness, provided
  his statement is trustworthy, reliable and finds
  corroboration from other prosecution evidence. The
  statement of PW1 inspires confidence and is truthful and
  reliable. His statement does not suffer from any material
c contradictions. On the other hand, it gives a correct
  version of what this witness saw. He did not claim to have
  witnessed the scene of stabbing of the deceased by the
  accused. He only stated that the crime was witnessed by
  the two minor children of the deceased and he had
  merely seen the accused running out from the house of
0
  the deceased with a knife in his hand. Where a sole
  witness has stated exactly what he had actually seen and
  the said statement otherwise fits into the case of the
  prosecution and is trustworthy, the court normally would
E not be inclined to reject the statement of such witness.
  [para 16-17] [356-B-D; 358-8-0]

        Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State of Sriramapuram P. S.
    & Anr., 2012 (4) sec 722 - relied on.

F      2.2. It also cannot be said that the statement of PW-
  1 cannot be relied upon for the ground that he is an
  interested witness. The presence of PW1 at the house of
  his sister is natural. He was working as a cleaner and was
  staying with his sister in the same village. He was
G sleeping outside the house of the deceased and went
  towards the house upon hearing her screams. Every
  witness, who is related to the deceased cannot be said
  to be an interested witness who will depose falsely _to
  implicate the accused. In the instant case, the accused
  is also related to PW1 and there could be no reason for
H
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF             347
                TAMIL NADU
PW1 to falsely implicate him. The statement of PW1 is A
worthy of credence. [para 17-18] [358-E-G]

     Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of UP. 2012 (4) SCC 79 -
relied on.

    3.1. Importantly, the injuries found on the person of B
the deceased have been recorded in the post-mortem
report Ext. P.12 by PW-14, the doctor who conducted the
post-mortem upon the body of the deceased. He opined
that the deceased would have died due to shock and
haemorrhage because of the injuries sustained by her. C
According to him, he had found multiple injuries on the
person of the deceased and that too, at the vital parts as
noted in the post-mortem report. This clearly shows that
the accused had come to the house of the deceased with
the definite intention to kill her, and by inflicting the D
multiple injuries on vital parts of her body, ensured that
she died instantaneously. [para 4, 14 and 19] (351-B-C;
354-D; 361-F-G; 362-A-B]

     3.2. There appears dual motive for the accused to E
commit the crime. Firstly, the deceased was his step-
mother, whose behaviour towards him was not
acceptable to the accused. Secondly, the entire
properties left by the father of the accused and husband
of the deceased, were being enjoyed by the deceased
herself. Existence of a motive for committing a crime is F
not an absolute requirement of law but it is always a
relevant factor, which will be taken into consideration by
the courts as it will render assistance to the courts while
analysing the prosecution evidence and determining the
guilt of the accused. (para 19] (362-8-E]                   G

     3.3. Further, it has come in evidence in the statement
of the Investigating Officer, PW-16, that the blood-stained
earth was collected from the place of occurrence and was
subsequently sent for chemical examination to the H
    348    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A Forensic Science Laboratory. According to PW-16, the
  accused took the police to the place where he got
  recovered the bloodstained knife M.0.6, and the
  bloodstained shirt worn by him, M.0.7, hidden in the
  bushes. They were sent to the Regional Forensic
B Science Laboratory. The serological report, Ext. P-9, with
  regard to M0-7 (the shirt) showed that it contained human
  blood of group 'A'. It has come in evidence that the blood
  group of the deceased was 'A'. The same blood group
  was also found on the saree, jacket and gunny bag which
C were seized by the Investigating Officer from the place of
  occurrence. This clearly connects the accused with the
  commission of crime. This is a very material and
  significant piece of evidence and was put to the accused
  during his statement u/s 313 CrPC, but except vague
  denial, he said nothing more. This is clinching evidence
0
  against the accused which fully supports the case of the
  prosecution. [para 22-23] [363-B-F]

       3.4. The prosecution case is, to a very limited extent,
  based upon circumstantial evidence and largely there
E exists ocular and documentary evidence. The statement
  of PW1 supported by the statements of PW-11, PW 16,
  PW6, PW14 and the recovery of the weapon of crime as
  per Ext M.O. 6, upon disclosure statement of the accused,
  as well as the report of the chemical examination and the
F serology report, Exts.8 and 9, respectively, complete the
  chain of event and clearly establish the material facts that
  lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused had
  committed the murder of his step-mother. The concurrent
  findings of fact recorded by the courts below, based
G upon proper appreciation of evidence clearly prove the
  guilt of the accused. In these circumstances, there is no
  reason to interfere with the finding of guilt as well as the
  order of sentence. [para 15, 20, 27 and 28) [355-H; 356-
  A; 362-F; 364-H; 365-A-B]
H
  ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                349
               TAMIL NADU

      4. PW-7 and PW-8 are said to be child witnesses who A
had seen the occurrence. They are sons of the deceased.
When they appeared before the trial court, it put certain
questions to them to form an opinion whether they would
be able to depose, and did not permit recording of their
statements. Legality or correctness of this direction of the B
trial court was not questioned either by the State or by
the accused in their appeal before the High Court and
even before this Court. It has not been claimed by either
party that these two child witnesses should have been
examined and that their non-examination has caused any c
prejudice to any of the parties in the appeal. [para 23, 24
25-26) (363-F-G; 364-E-F]
    Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997)
5 SCC 341 and Panchhi v. State of U.P. 1998 (1) Suppl.
 SCR 40 = (1998) 7 SCC 177 - referred to.                    D
                     Case Law Reference:
    2012 (4)  sec 122               relied on     Para 16
    2012 (4) sec 79                 relied on     Para 18
                                                             E
    (1997) s sec 341                referred to   para 23
    1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 40 referred to            para 23
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1315 of 2009.                                            F
    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.02.2007 of the High
Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.
47 of 2004.
    B. Sridhar for the Appellant.                            G
    B. Balaji, M. Anbalagan for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The present appeal is
directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court,      H
    350     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   Madurai Bench dated 28th February, 2007, affirming the
    judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th July,
    2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai holding
    the accused/appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302
    IPC and awarding sentence of life imprisonment and also to
B   pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for one year.
         2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be
    stated as follows:-
C        Tamilarasi, the deceased, was the second wife of one
    Karuppaiah. After the death of her husband, she was residing
    at Sikkandarchavadi and was enjoying the properties left by her
    deceased husband and collecting the rent from the properties.
    Accused Alagupandi is the son of Karuppaiah, from his first
    wife. Accused, after the death of his father, used to demand
0
    money from his step mother for which there used to be quarrel
    between them.
         3. On the midnight of 13th/ 14th January, 2002, when the
    deceased was sleeping with her two sons namely Prabakaran,
E   PW7, and Vinothkumar, PW8, the accused entered into the
    house with a knife and caused injuries on her stomach, chest
    and thigh. Because of this assault, Tamilarasi died on the spot.
         4. PW-1, P. Selvaraj, is the brother of the deceased and
    lived at Theni Village. He was staying with the deceased (his
F   sister) and was working as a cleaner in the lorry. On the fateful
    day, he was sleeping on a rock stone outside the house when
    he heard the distressing cry of his sister. When he went inside
    the house, he saw the accused coming out of the house with a
    knife in his hand. The accused ran towards the western side.
G   Thereupon, he went inside the house and saw his sister lying
    in a pool of blood. PW-1 then proceeded to the village
    headman and also to the village Panchayat President. Then,
    he was directed to go to the police station. He went to the
    police station, gave the complaint Ext. P-1 to Sub-Inspector of
H   Police, PW-11. On the basis of this complaint, the Police
  ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                    351
     TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
registered a case being Cr. No. 6/2002 under Section 448 and A
302 IPC. The FIR Ext. P-10 was registered and sent to the
Court. The Inspector of Police, PW-16 took up the investigation
and proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made investigations
in presence of the witnesses, prepared the Observation
Mahazar Ext. P-4 and sketch, Ext. P-15. Thereafter, the dead B
body was sent for autopsy. Dr. Alavudeen, PW-14 attached to
the Government Hospital, conducted the post mortem upon the
body of the deceased and gave the post mortem report, Ext.
P-12, wherein he opined that the deceased would have died
due to shock and haemorrhage because of injuries sustained         c
by her. Upon his arrest, the accused also made a confessional
statement in presence of the witnesses vide Ext. P-17. On the
basis of this statement, M.0.6., knife and M.0.7., blood stained
shirt were also recovered vide Ext. P-18. All the material objects
were sent for chemical examination by the forensic department
                                                                   0
which issued two certificates, Exts. P-8 and P-9, the chemical
examination report and the Serological report, respectively.

     5. It may be noticed at this stage itself that PW-7 and PW-
8, the two minor children of the deceased had seen the incident,
but their examination was not permitted by the trial court as is   E
evident from the judgment of the trial court and the evidence
produced before the Court.

     6. The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions
for trial under Sections 448 and 302 IPC and finally vide          F
judgment dated 19th July, 2004, he was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment and fine, as afore-noticed.

    7. Upon appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court
sustained the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the
appeal of the accused vide its judgment dated 28th February, G
2007, giving rise to the present appeal.

    8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
contended that :-
                                                                   H
    352         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A         (a)    PW-1 is the sole witness on whose statement the
                 courts have returned the finding of conviction
                 against the accused. PW-1 being an interested
                 witness and himself being an accused in another
                 murder case, it is not safe to rely upon the
B                statement of such witness as, it is neither reliable
                 nor truthful. Thus, the judgment of conviction is liable
                 to be set aside.

          {b)    The courts below have failed to appreciate the
                 evidence in its correct perspective. The prosecution
c                has not been able to prove its case beyond
                 reasonable doubt. A number of witnesses had
                 turned hostile and there is no corroboration to the
                 statement of PW-1. Even the confessional
                 statement recorded by the police is inadmissible.
D                There exists serious doubt as to the very presence
                 of PW-1 at the place of occurrence. Resultantly, the
                 appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

         9. First and foremost, we may deal with the contention as
E   to the presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence and whether
    the statement of the said witness is reliable and can form the
    basis of conviction of the accused. According to PW-1 and as
    per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence had taken
    place after 12 a.m./midnight on 13th/14th January, 2002. The
F   FIR, Ext. P-·10 was registered on the basis of the statement of
    PW-1. As per the details given in the said Exhibit, it was
    registered at 0130 hrs. on 14th January, 2002. Thus, at best,
    there is nearly one hour gap between the time of occurrence
    and registration of the FIR. The presence of PW1 at the house
    of his sister can hardly be doubted. If PW1 was not present
G   there, then it could not have been possible for him to see the
    accused running away after stabbing his sister and also he
    could not have met the Sarpanch of the village and then the
    Police Officer within a short period of occurrence, which facts
    have been proved from the evidence placed on record. PW-1
H
     ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                 353
        TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

stated the entire facts before PW-11, the Sub-Inspector, A
whereupon the FIR was registered. According to PW-1, he was
staying at the house of his sister and was working as a cleaner
in a lorry. Keeping in view the close relationship between the
parties, we do not see any reason to disbelieve PW-1 in this
regard. Firstly, there is no delay in lodging the FIR and even the B
delay of 1 and 1Y:z hour is fully explained by the conduct of PW-
1.
     10. As far as his presence at the place of occurrence is
concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has C
not been able to refer to any evidence that could create even a
reasonable doubt as to the presence of PW-1 at the place of
occurrence. In fact when PW-1 was cross-examined by the
accused, any suggestion of this kind was not even put to him
in the cross-examination.
                                                                  D
     11. PW-1 also stated that on hearing the noise, he ran
towards the house of his sister and thereupon the neighbors
Rajammal, Radha, Murugan, Palanimuthu and Muthaiah had
also come there. It is correct that Rajammal and Murugan had
not been examined by the police, while Radha, PW-4 and            E
Muthaiah, PW-2 did not speak favorably for the prosecution and
were declared hostile with the leave of the court.

     12. Palanimuthu, was examined as PW-3 and he stated
that he was living near the house of Tamilarasi, the deceased.    F
She had cried loudly and then he went and saw that some
people had come there and the deceased was bleeding from
her injuries. The police had come and they collected the earth
from the spot and he signed Exts. P-4 and P-5.

     13. Nothing adverse came on record in the cross- G
examination of this witness. PW-3, thus, has not only supported
the case of prosecution, but even provided due corroboration
to the statement of PW-1. When accused was taken into
custody, he made a statement on 17th January, 2002 and stated
that when he was five years old, there was a quarrel between H
    354         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   his mother and father and his father had brought him to
    Sikkandarchandi. When he was 10 years old, his father
    contracted a second marriage with the deceased. He stated
    the complete history of his family and about his bitter
    relationship with the deceased. He also stated that he had
    stabbed the deceased. Then, he proceeded to say that he had
8
    hidden the knife with which he had committed the offence on
    the side of the local tank situated at Sikkandarchavadi and he
    could get the same recovered. In furtherance to this statement,
    the knife, M.0.6, was recovered. Out of the witnesses to this
C   confession statement, one attesting witness, P.Rajendran, was
    not examined, however, the other witness M. Solaimuthu, was
    examined as PW-15.

         14. The courts, relying upon the admissible part of the
    statement of the accused, held that the recovery of knife had
D   been effected in accordance with law. Importantly, we may
    notice the injuries found on the person of the deceased by Dr.
    Alavudeen PW-14, who conducted the post-mortem upon the
    body of the deceased. The injuries on the person of the
    deceased were described by the said witness as follows:-
E
          "1.     An oblique stab wound on left breast 5 cm below
                  and medical to the left nipple 3 cm x 1 cm. both ends
                  pointed with regular margine. On dissection the
                  wound passes obliquely backwards and upwards
                  and inwards, piercing the underlying intercostals
F
                  muscles, vessels and nerves and left ventricle 2 cm
                  x 0.5 cm entering into cavity.

          2.      An oblique stab wound on left hyppchondrium 5 cm
                  below the left costal margin 4 cm x 1 cm x entering
G                 into abdominal cavity through which the loops of
                  small bowel found protruding out. Both ends pointed
                  with regular margin. On dissection the wound
                  passes obliquely, backwards and inwards.

          3.     An oblique stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x entering into
H
  ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                    355
     TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
           abdominal cavity on the right side of upper A
           abdomen 4 cm below the right costal margin
           through which loops of small bowel found protruding
           out, both ends pointed with regular margins. On
           dissection the wound passes obliquely downwards,
           backwards and medially.                             B

      4.   A vertical oblique stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the
           outer aspect of the left thigh 13 cm from left anterior
           superior liiac spine. Both ends pointed, margins
           regular. On dissection the wound passes
           backwards, medially and upwards, piercing the C
           underlying muscles, nerves and vessels and ends
           as a point.

      5.   An oblique stab wound on the back of left side of
           abdomen 3 cm above the left ilisc crest 3 cm x 1 D
           cm. both ends pointed with regular margins. On
           dissection: the wound passes upwards, forwards
           and medially piercing the underlying tissues,
           entering the peritoneal cavity.
                                                                   E
     6.    An oblique out injury on the back of left forearm 6
           cm above the wrist 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep cutting
           the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and bones.

     7.    An oblique out injury on the front of left forearm 10
           cm above the wrist 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep cutting      F
           the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and bones.

     8.    An oblique out injury on front of left forearm, 3 cm
           below injury No. 7 - 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep
           cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves." G

     15. The case of the prosecution clearly indicates that the
present case is, to a very limited extent, based upon
circumstantial evidence and largely there exists ocular and
documentary evidence to support the case of the prosecution.
                                                                   H
    356         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   The statements of PW1, PW6, PW14 as well as the report of
    the chemical examination and the serology report, Exts.8 and
    9, respectively, clearly establish the material facts that lead to
    the irresistible conclusion that the accused had committed the
    murder of his step-mother, Tamilarasi.
B
          16. We are not impressed with the contention that PW1
    is the sole and interested witness and, therefore, his statement
    cannot be relied upon by the. Court for returning the finding of
    conviction. It is a settled principle of law that the Court can
    record a finding of guilt while, entirely or substantially, relying
C   upon the statement of the sole witness, provided his statement
    is trustworthy, reliable and finds corroboration from other
    prosecution evidence. In the case of Govindaraju@ Govinda
    v. State of Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr., [Crl. Appeal No. 984 of
    2007 decided on March 15, 2012], this Court held as under:
D
          "11. Now, we come to the second submission raised on
          behalf of the appellant that the material witness has not
          been examined and the reliance cannot be placed upon
          the sole testimony of the police witness (eye-witness). It
E         i::. a settled proposition of law of evidence that it is not the
          number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance.
          It is also not necessary to examine a large number of
          witnesses if the prosecution can bring home the guilt of the
          accused even with a limited number of witnesses. In the
          case of Lal/u Manjhi and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand
F
          (2003) 2 SCC 401, this Court had classified the oral
          testimony of the witnesses into three categories:-

           a.     Wholly reliable;

G          b.     Wholly unreliable; and

           c.     Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

          12. In the third category of witnesses, the Court has to be
          cautious and see if the statement of such witness is
H         corroborated, either by the other witnesses or by other
ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                    357
   TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
documentary or expert evidence. Equally well settled is the      A
proposition of law that where there is a sole witness to the
incident, his evidence has to be accepted with caution and
after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by
other witnesses or evidence otherwise recorded. The
evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and        B
must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been
stated by the prosecution. When the prosecution relies
upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness, then such
evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy.
Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be         c
doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict
with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such
a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the
accused. These are the few principles which the Court has
stated consistently and with certainty. Reference in this
                                                                 0
regard can be made to the cases of Joseph v. State of
Kera/a (2003) 1 SCC 465 and Tika Ram v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 760. Even in the case
of Jhapsa Kabari and Others v. State of Bihar (2001) 10
SCC 94, this Court took the view that if the presence of a
witness is doubtful, it becomes a case of conviction based       E
on the testimony of a solitary witness. There is, however,
no bar in basing the conviction on the testimony of a solitary
witness so long as the said witness is reliable and
trustworthy.
                                                                 F
13. In the case of Jhapsa Kabari (supra), this Court noted
the fact that simply because one of the witnesses (a 14
years old boy) did not name the wife of the deceased in
the fardbayan, it would not in any way affect the testimony
of the eye-witness i.e. the wife of the deceased, who had        G
given graphic account of the attack on her husband and
her brother-in-law by the accused persons. Where the
statement of an eye-witness is found to be reliable,
trustworthy and consistent with the course of events, the
conviction can be based on her sole testimony. There is          H
    358      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 4 S.C.R.


A         no bar in basing the conviction of an accused on the
          testimony of a solitary witness as long as the said witness
          is reliable and trustworthy."

         17. In view of the settled position of law, we find that the
    statement of PW1 inspires confidence and is truthful and
8
    reliable. His statement does not suffer from any material
    contradictions. On the other hand, it gives a correct eye-version
    of what this witness saw. If PW1 intended to lie, nothing
    prevented him from saying that he was also an eye-witness to
    the scene of stabbing of the deceased by the accused. He only
C   stated that this crime was witnessed by the two minor children
    of the deceased and he had merely seen the accused running
    out from the house of the deceased with a knife in his hand.
    Where a sole witness has stated exactly what he had actually
    seen and the said statement otherwise fits into the case of the
D   prosecution and is trustworthy, the Court normally would not be
    inclined to reject the statement of such sole witness.
    Furthermore, it is contended that the statement of PW-1 cannot
    be relied upon by the Court also for the ground that he is an
    interested witness. This argument is equally without merit. The
E   presence of PW1 at the house of his sister is natural. He was
    working as a cleaner and was staying with his sister in the
    same village. He was sleeping outside the house of the
    deceased and went towards the house upon hearing her
    screams. Every witness, who is related to the deceased cannot
F   be said to be an interested witness who will depose falsely to
    implicate the accused. In the present case, the accused is also
    related to PW1 and there could be no reason for PW1 to falsely
    implicate the accused.

G        18. We have already discussed that the statement of PW1
    is worthy of credence. In the case of Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State
    of UP. [Crl. Appeal No. 77 of 2007 decided on 29th February,
    2012], a Bench of this Court held that it is not the quantity but
    the quality of the evidence which would bring success to the
    case of the prosecution or give benefit of doubt to the accused.
H
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                      359
      TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Statement of every related witness cannot, as a matter of rule,      A
be rejected by the Courts. This court, in the aforesaid case, held
as under:

    "19. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/
     appellants is that only family members of the deceased
                                                                     B
    were examined as witnesses and they being interested
    witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the
     prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses
    and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its
    case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again
    without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in       C
    examining family members, or any other person, as
    witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving
    family members of both sides, it is a member of the family
    or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone
    are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by       D
    jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis.
     Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are
    relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is
    credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance
    with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or              E
    documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would
    hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence
    merely on the ground that the witness was family member
    or interested witness or person known to the affected party.
    There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to           F
    examine such witnesses, because, as the events
    occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness
    available to give the complete version of the incident. In
    this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this Court,
    in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [(2007)           G
    14 SCC 150]. This Court drew a clear distinction between
    a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these
    witnesses have io be relied upon subject to their evidence
    being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the
    law. This Court, in the said judgment, held as under:            H
    360      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A                "28. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that
                Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of
                witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of
                the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates
                that there must be particular number of witnesses
B               to record an order of conviction against the
                accused. Our legal system has always laid
                emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence
                rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of
                witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court
c               to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and
                record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the
                accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses
                if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
                The bald contention that no conviction can be
                recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore,
D
                has no force and must be negatived.

                 29. It was then contended that the only eyewitness,
                 PW 6 Sopan was none other than the son of the
                 deceased. He was, therefore, "highly interested"
E                witness and his deposition should, therefore, be
                 discarded as it has not been corroborated in
                 material particulars by other witnesses. We are
                 unable to uphold the contention. In our judgment, a
                 witness who is a relative of the deceased or victim
F                of a crime cannot be characterised as "interested".
                 The term "interested" postulates that the witness
                 has some direct or indirect "interest" in having the
                 accused somehow or the other convicted due to
                 animus or for some other oblique motive."
G
          20. It will be useful to make a reference of another judgment
          of this Court, in the case of Satbir Singh & Ors. v. State
          of Uttar Pradesh, [(2009) 13 SCC 790], where this Court
          held as under:

H                "26. It is now a well-settled principle of law that only
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                    361
      TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
            because the witnesses are not independent ones          A
            may not by itself be a ground to discard the
            prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been
            supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason
            has been shown to discredit their statements, a
            judgment of conviction can certainly be based           B
            thereupon. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, at
            least Dhum Singh (PW 7) is an independent
            witness. He had no animus against the accused.
            False implication of the accused at his hand had
            not been suggested, far less established."              c
    21. Again in a very recent judgment in the case of Balraje
    @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673],
    this Court stated that when the eye-witnesses are stated
    to be interested and inimically disposed towards the
    accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to      D
    conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in
    innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence
    has to be weighed pragmatically. The Court would be
    required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and
    those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the         E
    accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their
    evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to
    be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to
    discard the same."
                                                                    F
      19. It will now be appropriate to refer to the statement of
PW14, the doctor, who performed the autopsy upon the body
of the deceased. According to this witness, he had found
multiple injuries on the person of the deceased and that too, at
the vital parts. We have already noticed the injuries caused, in    G
some detail. The accused inflicted injury on the breast of the
deceased wherein it pierced into the left ventricle of the heart.
Another stab injury was caused by him on the left side of the
rib through which the samall intestine had protruded out. Still,
another injury was caused on the right side of the rib through      H
    362     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A which also the small intestine had come out. This is besides
  the injuries he caused on the left hip, wrist and stomach of the
  deceased. This clearly shows that the deceased had come to
  the house of the deceased with the definite intention to kill her.
  The accused, by inflicting these multiple injuries on vital parts
B of her body, ensured that she died instantaneously. There
  appears dual motive for the accused to commit the crime.
  Firstly, the deceased was his step-mother, whose behaviour
  towards him was not acceptable to the accused. Secondly, the
  entire properties left by the father of the accused and husband
c of the deceased, were being enjoyed by the deceased herself.
  Furthermore, every time the accused had to ask for money from
  the deceased and more often than not, she refused to give him
  the money. These circumstances emerging from the record
  clearly show reason for some kind of animosity and ill-will on
  the part of the accused towards the deceased. Existence of a
0
  motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement
  of law but it is always a relevant factor, which will be taken into
  consideration by the courts as it will render assistance to the
  courts while analysing the prosecution evidence and
E determining the guilt of the accused.

         20. Statement of PW1, supported by the statements of
    PW11, PW6, PW14 and the recovery of the weapon of crime
    vide Exhibit M.0. 6, upon disclosure statement of the accused,
    completes the chain of events as stated in the case of the
F   prosecution. Except the part of the disclosure statement of the
    accused which led to the recovery of the said knife, the rest of
    the statement of the accused would be inadmissible in evidence
    as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

G        21. Still, there is another very vital aspect of the case of
    the prosecution on which the discussion is necessary. It has
    come in evidence in the statement of the Investigating Officer,
    PW-16, the Sub-Inspector who recorded the complaint of PW-
    1, PW-11 and the witness to the recovery, PW-6 that blood-
    stained earth was collected from the place of occurrence and
H
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                       363
      TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
was subsequently sent for chemical examination to the Forensic         A
Science Laboratory.

      22. According to PW-16, after the arrest of the accused,
the accused had taken the police to Sikkandarchavadi where
he got recovered the wooden-handled bloodstained knife
                                                                       B
M.0.6, and the bloodstained shirt worn by him, M.0.7, hidden
in the bushes. They were taken into custody by the Investigating
Officer in presence of the attesting witnesses. The recovered
items, along with blood stained blue, green and white check
shirt which the accused was wearing at the time of commission          C
of offence, were sent to the Director, Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Madurai for examination vide Ext. P-7. The
serological report, Ext. P-9, was submitted to the Court by the
laboratory. This report provided the result of M0-7 (the said
shirt) at serial No.8 of the report. As per the report, it contained
human blood of group 'A'. It has come in evidence that the             D
blood group of the deceased was 'A'. The same blood group
was also found on the saree, jacket and gunny bag which were
seized by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence.
This clearly connects the accused with the commission of crime.
This is a very material and significant piece of evidence and          E
was put to the accused during his statement under Section 313
CrPC, but except vague denial, the accused said nothing more.

      23. This is clinching evidence against the accused which
fully supports the case of the prosecution. PW-7 and PW-8 are          F
said to be child witnesses who had seen the occurrence. They
are sons of the deceased. When they appeared before the
Court, the Court put certain questions to both these witnesses
to form an opinion whether they would be able to depose. It
granted the permission to PW-7, but his statement was not              G
recorded. The Court declined permission for examining PW-
8. As such, the statement of both these witnesses was not
recorded. It is a settled principle of law that a child witness can
be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is
reliable, truthful and is corroborated by other prosecution
                                                                       H
    364      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A evidence. The Court in such circumstances can safely rely upon
  the statement of a child witness and it can form the basis for
  conviction as well. Further, the evidence of a child witness and
  credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of
  each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in
s mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that
  the witness must be reliable one and his/her demeanour must
  be like any other competent witness and that there exists no
  likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in
  every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated by
C other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand but
  as a rule of prudence the Court always finds it desirable to seek
  corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence
  placed on record. Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a
  child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable.
  (Ref. Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [(1997)
0
  5 SCC 341] and Panchhi v. State of UP. [(1998) 7 SCC 177].

       24. This aspect of the case need not detain us any further,
  inasmuch as the Trial Court did not permit recording of
  statement of these witnesses being child witnesses. Legality
E or correctness of this direction of the Trial Court was not
  questioned either by the State or by the accused in their appeal
  before the High Court and even before this Court.

       25. No arguments have been addressed even before us
F by either party that these two child witnesses should have been
  examined and that it has caused any prejudice to any of the
  parties in the present appeal.

       26. According to PW-1, these children had seen the
  accused murdering their mother. Despite this statement if these
G witnesses have not been examined and parties have not raised
  any objection in that regard, we see no reason to record any
  findings on this aspect of the case.

      27. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts
H below, based upon proper appreciation of evidence clearly
   ALAGUPANDI @ ALAGUPANDIAN v. STATE OF                    365
      TAMIL NADU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
prove the guilt of the accused. The statement of PW-1 is fully     A
corroborated by other witnesses, expert evidence and the
medical evidence.

       28. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere
with the finding of guilt as the well as the order of sentence.    8
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.