Holding

The conviction under s.302 read with s.34 and s.114 is upheld as the evidence, including the eyewitness’s later testimony, is credible and establishes the accused’s common intention and abetment.

Summary

The case involved four accused who tied, beat, strangled and poisoned the deceased, who was the brother of three accused and son of the fourth. The wife of the deceased (PW‑1) initially gave a false account to the Village Administrative Officer under threat, but later narrated the true events to her father, the police and before a Judicial Magistrate. The trial court convicted the accused under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and s.114, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of PW‑1, noting that her earlier statement was made under duress and that her later testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses. Finding the evidence reliable and the participation of the accused established, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 34 and 114 is sustainable despite the initial false statement by the key eyewitness.
Whether the eyewitness's statement made to the Village Administrative Officer was made under duress and therefore inadmissible.
Whether the later testimony of the eyewitness is credible and sufficient to establish common intention and abetment.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercommon intentionabetmentwitness intimidationfalse statementcredibility of testimonyIPCappeal

Judgment

A
NADIMUTHU AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR UF POLICE

FEBRUARY 26, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-s. 302 read with s. 34 and 114-Prosecution for
murder-Eye-witness to the incident-Different version of incident by the
C eye-witness before Village Administrative Officer, police and also Judicial
Magistrate-Later version of eyewitness corroborated by medical evidence
and evidence of other wi(nesses-Conviction by courts below-On appeal,
held: Conviction justified in view of the facts of the case.

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted for accused having caused death
D
of one person. The deceased was brother of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and son of
accused Nos 4. The accused first tied the deceased with a rope, beat him on
his forehead, strangulated him with a rope and them poured poison in his
mouth. As a result the deceased died. PW-1 (wife of the deceased) was the
witness to the incident. On hearing the cry of the deceased, PWs. 4 and 6
E reached there and had asked the accused as to why they were beating him,
they were told not to interfere as the matter was their family affair. Accused
threatened PW-1 not to reveal the truth. Hence she narrated a false story to
Village Administrator, as tutored by the accused. When her father came to
he, she narrated him and also to the police, the true version. She also gave a
F statement before the Judicial Magistrate. Trial Court found the accused guilty
under section 302 read with ss. 34 and 114 IPC. Conviction was confirmed by
High Court. Appeal of accused No. 4 before High Court was abated due to his
death.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G HELD: 1. The accused have committed a heinous crime and there is no
reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. There is no reason
to disbelieve P.W. 1 and PW. 4 PWl was the wife of the deceased and her
evidence inspires confidence. [Paras 6 and 8) (185-E; 186-C]

182
H
NADIMUTHU v. STA TE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [KATJU. J.] 183

2. P. W 1 has stated in her evidence that the statement before the Village A
Administrative Officer was made at that time because she was terrified at the
time and was told by the accused that. they would kill her if she told the truth.
At that time she had no support from anyone, and it was only after arrival of
her father that she got the courage to speak the truth. Hence, her statement
made to the Village Administrative Officer was under duress and threat, and B
her evidence given before the Trial Court is credible and is supported by the
medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW. 4 and other witnesses.
(Para 7) (185-H; 186-A-BJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 680 of
2006.
.C
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 3.3.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madrasin Criminal A. No. 86/1997.

P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, V. Vasudevan and T. Harish Kumar for the
Appellants. D
Sundaravaradan, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam and S. Prabhu
Ramasbramanian for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the E
impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 3.3.2005 in Criminal
Appeal No. 86 of 1997. Heard learned counsel for the parties and persued the
record.

2. The procecution case is that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The F
deceased is the elder brother of accused nos. I to 3. Accused no. 4 is the
- ...,.
father of the deceased and accussed nos. I to 3. PW .I is the daughter-in-law
of accused no.4. The deceased and the procecution witnesses are the residents
of Sodiankadu village. PW. I married the deceased about 9 years prior of the
date of occurance. PW. I and the appeallants herein lived as a joint family. It
is alleged that the deceased was leading a wayward life. PW. I was having a G
five and half years old daughter and a son, who was two years old at the time
- 1 of occurance. PW.l's father was looking after his daughter and children. On
'
14.7.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased came in a bicycle to his house. PW. I
offered him food, but he refused to eat. He enquired from PW.J as to where
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A his father was. At that time, accused no. 4, the father of the deceased was
in the house. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from him, but he
refused to give him the money since he was allegedly leading a wayward life.
The deceased threatened accused no.4. At that time, accused nos. I to 3 were
sitting in the tractor shed. The mother of the deceased was in the kitchen.
Accused no.4 decided to finish off the deceased since he had threatened him.
B Suddenly accused no. I chased the deceased and caught hold of him and
accused no.4 instructed accused no. 3 to bring a rope. There was a streetlight
burning at that time.Accused nos. I to 3 tied the deceased with the rope. On
seeing that, PW. I shouted and the deceased also asked to leave him. After
tying the deceased, they brought him to a tractor shed. Immediately, accused
C no. I took a wooden reeper and beat the deceased on his forehead. Blood
oozed out from his forehead. PW. I cried and the deceased also shouted
asking them to leave him. At that time, PW .4 came there and asked them as
to why they are beating the deceased. The accused told him that it being their
famiy affiar, he should not interfere. Immediately PW.4 left the place. Thereafter,
accused no. I attacked the deceased again with the wooden reeper on his right
D wrist. PW.6 and one Gangammal intervened and asked them as to why they
were attacking the deceased. They were also warned by the accused not to
interfere, since it was their family affairs. Thereafterm they also left th place. ,_
Even after the attack, since the deceased did not breathe his last, accused
1
no.3 brought a rope and accused nos. land 2 tied it on the neck of the
E deceased and strangled him. Further,. accused no.3 brought pesticide at the ·
instance of accused no.4. Accused no. I held the head of the deceased and
accused no.2 poured the pesticide into the mouth of the deceased. PW.I who
was standing outside shouted. Immediately, the mother-in-law sprinkled some
water on her face. The deceased was found dead. On receipt of the information,
the villegers came to the scene of occurence. The accused threatened PW.
F I that she will also meet the same fate as the deceased if she told the truth.
Hence before the village Administrative Officer, PW. I stated everything by , ..
the accused, which was reduced into writing and the same was marked as
Ex.P.1. The same was forwarded along with the report, Ex.P.6. to
Thiruthraipoondi Police Station through a meinal servant. Thereafter the father
G of PW. I reached there and asked her as to what transpired. She narrated to
him what really happened as also to the police. After fifteen days, she also
gave a statement before the judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, which was marked I
I
asEx.P.2.

3. In the post-mortem report the injuries as mentioned in the body of
H
NADIMUTHUv. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [KATJU,J.] ]85

the deceased are as follows:- A
<(
"I. 4 ems x I cm bone exposed lacerated injury present just above the
right inastoid region.

2. 2 ems x Y:z cm x skin depth lacerated injury over the left eyebrow
region. B
3. Two ligature markings lower one just 2 ems above the stemoclavicular
junction. Another one about 4 ems above the stemoclavicular junction.
_,, 4. I cm x 1/2 cm x skin depth lacerated injury over the right elbow
region."
c
4. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.1996 found the accused
guilty under section 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 I.P.C. and sentenced
them to life imprisonment and other terms of imprisonment mentioned of the
said judgment.

5. Against that judgment an appeal was filed before the High Court D
which was dismissed. however, it was observed in the judgment that since
acscused no.4 had died his appeal had abated.
_,,
~-
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We see no reason
to disbelieve PW.I and PW.4. PW.I was the wife of the deceased and her
E
evidence inspires confidence. She was stated that accused no.4 instructed
accused no.3 to bring a rope and then accused nos. I, 2 and 3 tied the
deceased with the rope and brought him to a tractor shed and accused no. I
took a wooden reeper and beat the deceased on his forehead. When the
deceased cried PW.4 came there and questioned the accused as to why they F
were beating the deceased but he was told not to meddle in the family affairs
and hence he left. Thereafter, accused no. I again attacked the deceased with
a wooden reeper. Accused no. 3 brought a rope and accused nos. I and 2
tied it on the neck of the deceased and strangled him. Further accusedv no.3
brought pesticide at the instance of Accused no.4 Accused no. I held the
head of the deceased and accused no.2 poured the pesticide into the mouth
G
of the deceased. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW. I.
-J,
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW. I had earlier
given a different version to the Village Administrative Officer stating that her
husband had fallen down from a bicycle. However, PW. I has stated in her H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R.

A evidence that the statement before the village Administrative Officer was
made at that time because she was terrified at that time and was told by the )»

accused that they would kill her if she told the truth. At that time she had
no support from anyone, and it was only after arrival of her father that she
got the courage to speak the truth. Hence we are of the opinion that her
B statement made to the Village Administrative Officer was under duress and
threat, and her evidence given before the Trial Court is crediable and is
supported by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW.4 and other
witnesses.

8. The accused have committed a heinous crime and we see no reason
C to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.