Supreme Court of India
GOPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 11
- Decided
- 30 January 1986
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- V BALAKRISHNA ERADI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that there was no infirmity, illegality or miscarriage of justice warranting interference, and therefore affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Summary
The case arose from a violent clash between local Harijan labourers and migrant workers hired by mirasdars during a paddy harvest dispute. On 25 December 1968, the deceased Packiriswami Pillai was attacked and fatally cut on the head and neck by the accused Gopal (A‑1) and others, as witnessed by several eye‑witnesses who also gave dying declarations. The Sessions Court convicted eight accused under sections 302, 148 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed rigorous imprisonment, a decision affirmed by the Madras High Court. The appellants sought special leave under Article 136, contending that the statements of certain witnesses were improperly recorded and that the dying declaration was unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the medical evidence, and the procedural aspects of recording statements, and found no illegality, procedural defect, or miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the convictions and sentences, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The propriety of the Supreme Court interfering with a conviction and sentence when both the trial and appellate courts have concurred.
- Whether the statements of witnesses (especially P.W. 34‑37) were improperly recorded, rendering the evidence unreliable.
- Whether the dying declaration of the deceased is trustworthy and sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.
- Whether any procedural irregularities or violations of principle justify setting aside the convictions under sections 302, 148 and 364 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 136
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 302, s. 364
Subjects
murderdying declarationconvictionsentencecriminal appealArticle 136procedural irregularityeye‑witness testimonyIndian Penal Codelabour dispute
Judgment
A
GOPAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
JANUARY 30, .1986
B
.
·J
,
[V. BAIAKRISHNA ERADI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - Criminal
appeal - Conviction and sentence - Concurrently arrived at by
trial and Appellate Courts - Interference by Supreme Court -
When arises.
Practice and Procedur.e - Sentence - Question of - C
Supreme Court - When would interfere.
~ The Mirasdars used to bring labourers from outside for
harvest of paddy from their fields as local labourers were
reluctant to harvest paddy at the wage of 4 1/2 measures of
~ paddy. The local labourers were very 11111ch aggrieved by this
bringing of men from outside for harvesting. of paddy. On 25th o
December, 1968 one Packiriswami Pillai, since deceased, along-
with 17 other labourers of Irakkai village was returning home
at about S.30 P.M. after harvesting of crops from the fields
of P.W.15. They reached the east-west llarijan Street at about
7.30 P.M. There was moon light and electric light. There,
P.Ws. 31,32,34 to 44 saw a crowd of 10 to 15 persons standing, E
In that crowd P.Ws. 31,32,34 to 37 saw accused Nos.l and :i.
armed with aruvals. The crowd questioned them as to which
place they belonged to, whereon they replied that they belong-
ed to Irakkai. Immediately, A-1, Gopal cried out ''Do not leave
-~,.Irakkai people, cut them, beat them." P.Ws. 31;32,34 to 37
while running found Packiriswami Pillai tripping and falling F
down near the electric lamp post on the Harijan Street. 'nley
also saw accused Nos. 1 arul 2 and some others in the crowd
lifting the deceased by haruls, legs and clothes. Then he was
carried to some distance towards the east. At that time
Packiriswami Pillai cried out that he was being cut by Gopal
(A-1) and they were leaving him behind and running. P.Wa. G
31,32 and 34 to 37 saw the first accused cutting Packiriswami
Pillai with aruval on his neck and on his head. P.Ws. 31,32,
• -,. 34,35,36 and 37 ran. towards the Caste Hindu Street and ulti-
__ , mately entered into the house of P.W.47. Another crowd of
50-60 persons armed with aruvals and sticks came from the
H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R.
A
south and they caused injuries on the persons of P.\ls. 54 and ·"'~
55 who came out of their house. On getting information at
about 8.00 P.M., P.ll.72, the Head Constable, with some S.A.P.
men went to Keezha Vanmani and after collecting the injured
persons from the house of P.W.47 as well as collecting the
injured P.ll.54 and 55 in the van came to·the Keevalur Police
B Station where P.ll.79 (Inspector of Police) recorded the state-
ment of P.ll.54 and registered the same as Crime No. 326 of
1968. He thereafter recorded the statements. of P.ll.55 and
P.lls. 34 to 37 in the Police Station. At about 11.45 P,M, ', -
P,\1,79 left for Keezha Vanmani and met P,\1,31 there. Then both
of them went to Nadu Street and found the dead body of
C Packiriswami Pillai with multiple injuries. P.ll. 79 'recorded
the statement of P.ll.31 and registered the same as Crime No.
328 of 1968,
Out of 22 accused,the Sessions Judge acquitted 14 and
convicted a.• namely, accused Nos. l,2,12,f3,17,18,19 and 20
under various offences and sentenced them to suffer rigorous
t
D imprisonment fqr various terms. Te Sessions Judge found the .::1
aforesaid accused guilty of various offences on the grounds
(1) that there was electric light and also moon light at the
time of the occurrence and that P.Ws. 31,32 and 34 to 37 wit-
nessed the fatal injuries caused by aruvals on the head and
neck of Packiriswami Pillai by Gopal (A-1); (2) that the
E cryi1,1g out by the deceased Packiriswami Pillai that Gopal
(A-1) was cutting him was'in the nature of Dying Declaration
and no motive could be ascribed for the deceased to falsely
implicate the accused A-1, Gopal at that lllOllent; (3) that the
injuries sustained by P.lls. 34 to 36 with all probabilities
establish the presence of these P.lls. at a close range 'and
F seeing the occurrence; and ( 4) that there was also overwhelm-,,'·
ing evidence as to the presence of A-1 in the crowd. The
appeal of all the 8 accused persons filed before the High
Court was dismissed.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
G HELD : 1. There is no infirmity far less any illegality
or failure of justice which would impel the Supreme Court to
interfere with the order of conviction and sentence con-
currently arrived at by both the courts below. [210 D]
2(i) P.lls. 34 to 37 have ·clearly stated in their deposi-
tions that they witnessed A-1 inflict cutting injuries on the(-•
H neck and head of Packiriswami Pillai after lifting hia along-
GOPAL v. STATE 201
W with other accused and carrying him to the east of Harijan A
If' Street. The court of appeal below hss rightly held thst P.W.
54 was only concerned with the incident thst occurred before
his house and, as such, in Exhibit P-11 there was only the
reference to the said incident. It was also held thst P.W. 79
in his deposition refuted the suggestion thst he did not
examine P.W. 34 to 37 at the time alleged by him. Moreover, B
all these P.Ws. 34 to 37 sufferred several injuries being
_ , chased by the crowd while running towards the house of P.W.
·I 47. Tllerefore, evidences of all these eye witnesses as well as
of P.W. 31 were believed by both the courts below thst A-1
caused. fatal cut injuries on the person of deceased Packiri-
swami Pillai. (207 A-C]
2(ii) P.W. 65, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, c
who conducted postmortem also stated in his deposition thst
out of the 11 injuries caused on the person of deceased
Packiriswami Pillai, the injuries Nos. l and 2 which could
have been caused by single cut were sufficient in the ordinary
A· course of nature to cause death. The doctor has also stated in
his evidence thst after the infliction of ·injury No. 1 the D
. injured could hsve shouted out. There is, therefore, ample
evidence to negative the submission thst the accu8ed No. 1 was
falsely implicated. Moreover, P.W. 72 has stated in his
deposition that he is deaf and as such he could not hear
whether P.Ws. 34 to 37·stated about the injuries caused by A-1
on deceased Packiriswami Pillai. He also stated thst he heard E
P.Ws. 34 to 37 uttering Pacldriswami, Packiriswami. It was
rightly held by both the courts below thst P.W. 72 was deaf
and could not hear whst they told him. The non-mentioning of
·-< attack on Packiriswami Pillai by P.W. 54 in his statement does
'-not in any way lead to the inference that the statements of
P.Ws. 34 to 37 were recorded after recording of the statement F
of P.w. 31. (207 D-F]
3(i) P.W. 79 recorded the stateme~t of P.Ws. 34 to 37 in
the Police Station after recording of the statements of P.Ws.
54 and 55. The mere recording of Statements in plain-sheet
instead of in diary form in these circumstances does not lead
to any where in view of the clear evidence of P.W. 79 which G
was believed by both .the courts below that the statements of
these P.Ws. were recorded by him immediately after recording
-_j the statement of P.w. 54 (Exhibit P-11). (207 H; 208 A]
3(ii) P.Ws. 31,32 and 34 to 37 clearly stated in their
evidence that they did not see P.W. l at all. The evidence of
P. w. l was that he did not go to Caste Hindu Street at that H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A time, In view of these evidence, the Court of appeal below
held that the evidence of P,W, 72 to the effect that P.w. 1
came near the house of P,W, 47 could not be accepted. It was
also pointed out by the Court of appeal below that P.w. 72 haa
not spoken about presence of· P,W, 1 at about that time either
in Crime No. 326 or in Crime No, 328 of 1968. It was only
-
during the investigation in Crime No. 327 of 1968 namely the
B connected arson case, P,W, 72 made the above statement,
(208 C-D}
4, It was not improbable that because at the time of the ' )-
recording of statement of P.Ws. 34 to 37, P.W. 79 was not
l\Ware of the death of Packiriswami Pillai, so he did not
consider it a grave crime and did not re.gister it separately
c as spoken to by him. P.W. 79 further stated in his evidence
that both the occurrances namely attack on P.Ws. 54 and 55 and
Packiriswami Pillai formed part of one and the same trans-
action, P,W. 79 further admitted that he ought not to have
regi.stered a separate case in Crime No. 328 of 1968 on the
statement of P.W. 31, It was rightly held by the Court of
D appeal below that P.w.· 79 adopted irregular procedure in
registering separate crime number on the baais of the state-
ment of P.w. 31 and this cannot lead to the inference that
P.Ws. 34 to 37 were examined only after examination of P.W.
31, It was rightly held by the court of aL,eal below that
these irregularities committed by P,W, 79 in not recording the
E statement of P,Ws. 34 to 37 in Case Diary Form and registering
the separate crime number. on the statement of P.W. 31 could
not militate against the prosecution case. No motive haa been
suggested against P.W. 79, (208 G-H; 209 A-Bl
5, The accused 1 and 2 have been convicted by the Courts
below on the finding that the offences charged against them .)-
F have been proved by the eye witnesses beyond any reasonable
doubt, There was no illeg81ity nor any question of principle
involved in the matter of making order sentencing them to
imprisonment as provided in as. 302 and 364 of the Indian
Penal Code. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere
with the sentences passed by the Courts below. (209 E-F]
G State of Maharashtra v. Ha,er Bans George, A.I,R, 1965
S,C. 722 applied.
Pritam Singh v, The State, A,I.R, 1950 S.C, 169 and ( _-
Sadlu Singh Baroam Singh v, State of Pepsu, A, I,R, 1954 S,C,
271 referred to.
H
-i
GOPAL v. STATE [B.C.RAY, J.] 203
. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 234
of 197 3.
A
From the Judgment and Order· dated 4.-8.1972 of the Madras
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1971;
R.K. Garg, Gopal Singh a11d• L.R; Singh for ·the Appel-
lants.
B
K.G. Bhagat, A. V. Rangam, Umanath Singh, v.c. Nagaraj
and R.B. Misra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.C, RAY, J, This appeal on spec.fa! leave is directed
against the Judgment and Order of the liigh Court of Judicature
at Madras dated 4.8.1972 in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1971 c
whereby the appeal was d.ismissed and the conviction and
sentences passed by the Court of Sessions, east Thanjavur
Division at Nagapattinam against the accused nos. 1, 2, 12,
lil 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were conflrmed.
D
The prosecution c·ase is as follows:
All the accused appellants are resi.dents of various
villages within Keevalur Police Station. The flrst accused is
the leader of the Left Communist Party and also of the Harijan
Kisans of five neighbouring villages. Accused nos. 17 and 18
E
are the leaders of the Left Commun! st Party at Keezha Venmanl
village. There were serj ous d.i fferences between the Mi rasdars
and the Harijan labourers regarding the fixation of wages for
harvest. These troubles started in 1967 and the Kisans have
, been agi ta ting for higher wages by taking processions and
'convening meetings. There was a settlement in 1967 whereby the
Mannargudi agreement was made between the partles providl ng
for addi.tional half measure of paddy to the Harijan labourers.
This settlement was enforced from January 1968, but in
November 1968 the Harijan labourers demanded uni.form wages of
six measures of paddy per kalam of paddy harvested and in case
this six measures of paddy was not paid, the labourers tres-
G
passed into the lands and illegally harvested paddy crops.
This created the trouble as the local Harijan labourers refus-
. . ._ , ed to work at a low wage and demanded h.fgher wages. There was
.::I the Paddy Producers Association havi.ng .its offices in several
villages. P.W. 1 Gopal Kri.shna Naidu was the President of
H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l s.c.R.
A Paddy Producers Associatlon of Nagai Taluk and P,W, 19 Ramu . '~
Pillai was the President of the Association at Irukkai and the
deceased Packiriswami Pillai was a member of the Association.
The Mirasdars used to bring labourers from outside for harvest
of paddy from their fields as local labourers were reluctant
to harvest paddy at the wage of 4-1/2 measures of paddy. The
local labourers were very much aggrieved by this br:inging of
B men from outside for harvesting of.paddy.
On 25th December, 1968 Packiriswami Pillai, since
deceased, alongwl th other labourers of Irakkai came to harvest ',~
the. paddy crops from the fields of the Mirasdar P,W, 15 at ~. . .
about 9.00 a.m. It appears that on apprehending trouble P,W, '
15 sent Exhi.bi.t P, 9 to the Inspector at Keevalur PoHce
c Station and Exhibit P. 8 to the Valivalam Police Statlon
requesting for sending some police men so that harvesting of
crops might be done peacefully, The harvesting of crops was
over by 5,30 p.m. and each of the labourers were fed with
Sambar Satham. Each of them were paid 4-1/2 measures of paddy
per kalam. P.Ws. 25, 26 and one Rangayyan left immediately as.,
D they wanted to go to Thevur for seeing a picture. The
seventeen Irukkai people started for home sometime thereafter.
The Irukkal. labourers re.ached the east-west Harljan Street at
about 7.30 p.m. P.Ws. 42 and 43 purchased betels in the shop
of P.W. 30, Subramsniam, of the main road. There was moon
light and electric light, There were bamboo clusters Jn the
E form of a hood on either side of the east-west Harijan Street
near the second electric lamp post from the west. At the east
west Harijan Street, P.Ws, 31, 32, 34 to 44 saw a crowd of 10
to 15 persons standing. In that crowd PWs. 31, 32, 34 to 37
saw accused Nos. 1 and 2 armed with aruvals. The crowd
questioned them as to wh.ich place they belonged to, wher.eof!.,>--
F they replied that they belonged to Irukkai. Immediately, A-1
Go pal er.led out, "Do not leave Ir.uk.ka:I people, cut them, beat
them," A crowd of about 50 persons being armed w:i th aruvals,
sticks etc. came running towards the lrukkai people. P.Ws. 31,
32, 34 to 37 while running found Packiriswami Pi.llai tripping
and falling down near the electrlc lamp post on the Hadjan
G Street. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and some other.s :In the crowd also
Lifted him by hands, legs and clothes. Then he was carried to
some di.stance towards the east. At that tJ.me Pack:I riswami
Pillai cried out that he was .being cc;•. by Gopal (A-1) and they .., _,.
were leav.ing him behind and running. t.Ws. 31, 32 and 34 to 37<;-
saw the first accused cutt.lng PaclddF.wami Pillai with aru>:al
H on his neck and on his head. P.Ws. 31, 32, 34, 35, 36 and 37 ·
GOPAL v. STATE [B.C.RAY. J.) 205
rr.an towards the Caste Hindu Str.eet and ~ltimately entered into A
, the house of P.W. 47. Another. cr.owd of 50-60 per.sons armed
with ar.uvals and sticks came from the south and they caused
injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 54 and 55 who came out of
their. houses. Pn the same day at about ...8. 00 p. m. P. w. 79,
Inspector ~f ,Police, Keevalur. Police Station on getting
information that some persons ·armed with lethal weapons were B
parading on the main r.oad beyond Th~vur. and towards south,
after requisitioning a. vehkle (van) fr.om Nagapattinam Police
Statiori sent P.w. 72, the Head Constable with t~ van for. road
~--:' patrolling between Ihevur. and Killukudi. P.W. 72 with some
S.A. P. men went to Keezha Vanman.i. and after col.lecting the
injured per.sons fr.om the house of P. w. 47 as well as collect-
ing the injured P.Ws. 54 and 55 in the van came to the c
Keevalur. Police Station, where P.w. 79 (Inspector. of Police)
recorded the statement of P.W. 54 who was lying ser.iously
fojur.ed in the van and registered the same as Cr.ime No. 326 of
1968 of Ke~valur. Police Station. He thereafter. recorded . the
statements of P.W. 55 in the van and r.ecorded the statements
>:· of other P.Ws. 34 to 37 in the Police Station. Thereafter. P.W. D
· 79 at about 11.45 p.m. left for Keezha Venman1 and r.eached at
about 12.00 m:fd night. He met P.W. 31 there. P.W. 79 then went
to Nadu street alongwith P.W. 31 and fowld the dead body of
Packir.iewami P1lla1 kept leaning against a coconut tr.ee with
multiple injuries. P. W. 79 recor.ded the statement of P. w. 31
and r.egister.ed the same as ·Cr.ime No. 328 of 1968. E
The learned Sessions Judge after. duly weighing the
evidences of P.Ws. found inter alia that ther.e was electric
light and also moon light at the tiine of the occur.r.ence. P.Ws.
31, 32 and 34 to 37 witnessed the fatal 1njudes caus.ed by
aruvals on the head and neck of Packiriswami Pillai by C.Opal
-:\ (A-1). It was also held that the cr.ying. out by the deceased F
- Packiriswami Pillai that Gopal (A-1) was cutting him was in
the natur.e of Dying Declar.atlon and no motive could be
ascribed for. the deceased to falsely implicate the accused· A-1
Gopal at that moment. Moreover, the injur.ies sustained by
P.Ws. 34 to 36 with all pr.obabilities establish the pr.esence
of these P. Ws. at a close range and seei.ng the occurr.ence. G
Ther.e was also over.whelming evidence as to the pr.esence of A-1
1.n the cr.owd. (;he lear.ned Sessions Judge found accused No~ l '
gu:l.lty of offence under. s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to
"- impr.isonment for. life. He also found the accused No. l along-
~ 'j with accused Nos. 2, 13, 17 and 18 guilty of mur.der. under. s.
148 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to under.go r.igor.ous H
'
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l s.c.R.
I
A imprisonment for. two years. Accused Nos. l and 2 were also '"""'
held guilty of the offence under. s. 364 l.P.C. and sentenced
each of them to under.go rigorous imprisonment for. 5 year.s. All
these sentences wilt r.un concur.r.ently. Out of 22 accused, 14
of the accused were acquitted and 8 of them i.e. ~ccused Nos.
1, 2, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were convicted undet. various
offences and they were sentenced to suffer. r.igor.ous impr.ison-
B ment for. various terms.
Against the aforesaid judgment and or.der. of conviction, . _...
all the 8 accused per.sons failed Cdmi nal Appeal No. 23 of ~
1971. The appeal was d:f.smissed and the convictJon of all the
accused appellants for. var.ious of fences and sentences of
imprisonment awarded against each of them were confirmed.
c
Mr.. Garg, learned counsel, appearing only on behalf of
the accused appellant No. l has submitted befcr.e this Court
that he will argue in this appeal only on behalf of the
accused appellant No. l Gopal and as regards accused appellant
No. 2 he further. submitted before us that the appellant No. 2 ~
D Ramayyan who was convicted under. s. 364 l.P.C. and sentenced
to under.go r.igor.ous imprisonment for. five years may "'e gr.anted
exemption f r.om under.going the r.emajning term of the sentence.
It has been firstly contended by Mr.. Garg, lear.ned
coW18el, that the statement of P.W. 54 Packidswamy Por.aiyar.
(Exhibit P-11) which was r.ecor.ded by P.W. 79 and registered in
E Cr.ime No. 326 of 1968 did not ment:fon about the attack on
deceased Packi r.iswami. Pillai or. any lr.ukkai people. It has
also been subm.itted that P.W. 72 (Head Constable) who collec-
ted the injured per.son P.Ws. 54, 55 and 34 to 37 in the van
and took them to the Police Station at Keevalur. also dJ.d not
tell about the _attack on the deceased Packir.iswami Pillai. It ,.,......_,.
....
F has been, therefore, submitted that the statements of P.Ws. 34
to 37 wer;e ·recor.ded not · at the Police Station immediately
after. r.ecor.ding statement of P.w. 54 i .e. Exhibit P-1 1. It has
also been sub~itted that the accused Gopal (A-1) who i s well
known t o the 1'lir.asdars has been falsely implicated at the
jnst ance of P.W. 1, who as s t ated by P.W. 72 came to the pla ce
G wher.e P.W. 72 was br] nging the jnjur.ed per.sons in the van i.e.
P.Ws . 54, 55 and 34 to 37 for. br.i ng them to the Police
Station. Th.ls submis si on has no l egs to stand upon. It has
been held by both the courts below that the evidences of P.Ws. 'y >'
34 to 3 7 were r.ecor.ded by the Inspector., Keevalur. PoU ce "-. ·
Station (P.W. 79) as soon as they were hr.ought to the Poli ce
H
GOPAL v. STAIE [B.C,RAY, J.] 207
A
Station at about 10. 30 a.m. All these witnesses have clearly
stated in their. depositions that they witnessed A-1 inflict
cutting inj ur.ies on the neck and head of Pacld r.fawami Pillal.
after. lifting him alongwith other. accused and car.r.ying him to
the east of Har.ijan Str.eet. The court of appeal below has
dghtly held that P.W. 54 was only concer.ned wl.th the incl.dent
B
that occured befor.e his house and as such ·.1 n Exhibit P-11
ther.e was only the r.efer.ence to the said incident. It was also
held that P.W. 79 in his deposition r.efuted the suggestion
that he did not examine P.W. 34 to 37 at the time alleged by
him. Mor.eover. all these P.Ws. 34 to 37 suffer.r.ed sever.al
injuries bel.ng chased by the crowd wh.ile running towards the
house of P.W. 47. Ther.efore evidences of all these eye wit-
nesses as well as of P.W. 31 wer.e believed by both the courts
c
below that A-1 .caused fatal cut injuries on the per.son of
deceased Packir.iswaml Pillai. P.W. 65 Dr. Madan Gopal,
Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nagapatt.inam, who
conducted post-mor.tem also stated in h.is deposition that out
of the ·11 injuries caused on the per.son of deceased Pacld.r.i-
D
swaml Pillai, the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 wh.ich could have been
caused by single cut was sufficl ent .1 n the or.di nar.y cour.se of
nature to cause death. The Doctor has also stated in his
evidence that after the infliction of injury No. 1, the
injured could have shouted out. There ls, therefore, ample
evidence to negative the submission that the accused No. 1 was
E
falsely implicated, Moreover., P.W. 72 has stated in his
deposition that he is deaf and as such he could not hear
whether P.Ws. 34 to 37 stated about the injureis caused by A-1
on deceased .Pacldr.iswami Pilla.1. He also stated that he heard
P.Ws. 34 to 37 utter.ing Packir.iswami, Packir.iswaml. It was
rightly held by both the courts below that P.W. 72 was deaf F
and could not hear. what they told him. The non- mentioning of
attack on Packir.iswami. Pillai ,by P.W. 54 in his statement does
not in any way lead to the inftorence that the statements of
P.Ws. 34 to 37 were r.ecor.ded after r.ecording of the statement
of P.W. 31. It has been tried to be submitted In this connec-
tion that the statements of these P.Ws. wer.e r.ecorded in G
plain-sheet of paper instead of recor.ding Jn diary form, and
this raises suspician that the statements of the P.Ws. 34 to
37 were not r.ecor.ded immediately after the recording of the
statement of P.W. 54. This submission was also set at naught
by the courts below by holding that P.W. 79 recorded the stat-
ments of P.Ws.• 34 to 37 in the Police Station after recor.ding
H
of the statements of P.Ws. 54 and 55. The mere recording of
I
\
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19861 i s.c.R.
statements in plain-sheet instead of Jn dl.ary form in these
A circumstances does not lead to any where in view of the clear
evidence of P.W. 79 which was believed by both the courts
below that the statements of these P.Ws. were recorded by him
immediately after recording the statement of P.W. 54 (Exhibit
P-11),
It was submitted that had P.Ws •. 31, 32 and 34 to 37
known about the. attack on deceased Packi riswam.i Pl llai and his
B being carried away, it was unlikely that they would not have
informed P.W. 1, who came there as stated by P,W, 72 and P.W.
l in that case would have taken further actJon in the matter
with the help of P.W. 72, Th.is submission has also no merit.
lt has been held by the court of appeal below that P.Ws. 31,
32 and 34 to 37 clearly stated .in their evidence that they did
c not see P.W. l at all. The evidence of P.W, l was that he did
not go to Caste Hindu Street at that time. ln view of these
evidences, the court of appeal below held that the evidence of
P,W, 72 to the effect that P.W. l came near the house of P,W,
47 could not be accepted. lt was also pplnted out by the court
of appeal below that P.W. 72 has not spoken about presence of )
D P,W, l at that tl.me el ther i.n Crime No. 326 or Jn Crime No.
328 of 1%8, lt was only during the lnvestlgatlon in Cr.ime No.
327 of 1968 namely the connected arson case P,w,' 72 made the
above statement. Therefore, this submission ls not sustain- ,
able.
lt was submitted by Mr, Garg that had P,Ws. 34 to 37
E stated in their statements which were recorded by P.W. 72 at
Keevalur PoUce Station about the attack on Pack!rlsw~
PHlaJ, then that •tatement would have been recorded separate-
ly and a separate crime number would have been given to it as
was done Jn recording statement of P,W, 31 and registering it
in Crime No. 328. of 1968. lt was, therefore, suggested that P,
F Ws. 34 to 37 were examined by P.W. 79 only after recordi.ng
statement of P.W. 31. Th.is submission was also urged before
the Court of appeal below and It was held that it was not
improbable that because at the time of the recordl.ng of state-
ment of P.Ws. 34 to 37, P. w. 79 was not aware of the death
of Packl.rlswaml .Pillai, so he did not consider it a g'fave
G crime and did not register it separately as spoken to by him,
P.W. 79 furhter stated in his evidence that both the occurren-
ces namely attack on P.Ws. 54 and 55 and Packl.r!swaml. Pillai
formed part of. one and the same transaction. P.W. 79 further
admitted that he ought not to have registered a separate case
in Crime No·, 328 of 1968 on the statement of P,W, 31, It was
H
GOPAL v. STATE [B.C.RAY, J,] 209
'
1'
. I
r"'"-f· rightly held by the Court of appeal below that P.W. 79 adopted
A
I irregular procedure in registeribg separate crime number on
the basis of' the statement of P.W. 31 and this cannot lead to
the inference that P.Ws. 34 to 37 were examlned only after
examination of P.W. 31; It was rightly held by the Court of
appeal below that these frregularSties collllllitted by P.W. 79 in
not recording the stat,ement of P.Ws. 34 to 37 in Case D:lary B
Form and. regJ ster..i ng the separ.ate cr.1:me number. on the state-
ment of P.W. 31 could not mHltate against the prosecution
case. No motive has been suggested against P.W. 79.
It was lastly submitted before us by Mr. Garg that in
view of the sentence already suffered by A-1 and A-2 this.
Court should remit the remain.Ing period of their sentence. W11
are unsble to accept this submissi.on advanced by Mr. Garg. c
Mention may be made in th! s connection to the observations of
this Court in State 'ot Maharashtra v. Mayer Bans George,
A.I.R. [1965] s.c. 722, which are as follows:-
. "It .is the settled rule of the Supreme Court that
it would not Interfere with the sentence passed by
the Courts below unless there is an illegality in D
it or the same involves any question of prindple."
As we have already stated herein before that the accused
1 and 2 have been convicted by the courts below on the finding
that the offences charged aga.i nst them have been proved by the
eye witnesses beyond any reasonable doubt. There was no E
illegality nor any question of princi.ple involved Jn the
matter of making order sentenc:i ng them to .imprisonment as
provided in ss. 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. There-
fore, we are not inclj ned to interfere with the senterlces
·-< passed by the Courts below •
•
F
It is pertinent to mention here the observations made by
this Court in Pritam Si,.gh v. The State, A.I.R. [1950] s.c.
169, which are as follows:-·
"It will not grant special leave to .appeal under
r Article 136 (1) of the Constitution unless it is G
shown that exceptional and special circumstances
exist, that substantial and grave injustice has
been done and ·the case in questi.on presents
features of- sufficient gravity to war.rant a review
of the decision appealed against and that only
H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19B6J i s.c.a.
those points can be urged at the final hearing of
A the appeal which are fit to be urged at the prelim-:
Jnary stage when leave is asked for. It is well
established that this court does not by special
leave convert .itself into a court to review
evidence of a third time, Where, however, the court
below fails in apprehending the 1true effect of a
B material change Jn the versions given by the
witnesses Jnnnedlately after the occurrence and the
narrative at the td al wl th respect to the nature
and character of the offence, it seems to us that
Jn such a si tuatlon lt would not be right for this
c court to affJ rm such a decision when it occasions a
faj lur.e of justice."
This decision has been relied upon and followed l n a
subsequent decisi.on of this Court in Sadlll Singh llarnam Singh
v. State of Pepsu, A.l.R. (1954] S.C, 271,
In the premise aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity
D for less any illegall ty or failure of justice which would
impel us to interfere with the order of conviction and
sentence concurrently arrived at by both the courts below.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the convic-
tlon and sentences passed on accused Nos. A-1 and A-2 as well
as on other appellants.
M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search