PALANIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

658                     [2018] REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   13 S.C.R. 658              [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A                                   PALANI
                                       v.
                           STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2009)
B                            NOVEMBER 27, 2018
            [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148, 435 r/w. s.149 and s.302 r/w.
      s.149 – Case of the prosecution that when mother and brother of
      ‘S’ (PW-1 and PW-2 respectively) were going in an auto, ‘S’ along
C
      with PW-3 followed them on a motor cycle – Appellant along with
      other accused persons surrounded ‘S’ – One of the accused threw
      a lighted match stick into the petrol tank of the bike of ‘S’ and burnt
      it into fire – On seeing this, PW-1, ‘S’ and PW-3 ran in various
      directions with PW-1 following ‘S’ – When they reached near a field,
D     all the accused surrounded ‘S’ – ‘S’ was stabbed with knives and
      died on the spot – Trial court convicted all the accused – High
      Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant – Held: PW-
      1 is the star witness for the prosecution – Evidence of PW-1 is clear
      that the accused persons had caused the injuries as stated by her –
      Her evidence is cogent, consistent and amply supported by medical
E
      evidence and other evidence – Overt act of the appellant that he
      cut the deceased with aruval had been categorically spoken by PW-
      1 – Plea of appellant of false implication was concurrently rejected
      by both the courts below, there is no ground to interfere with such
      concurrent finding of fact – Upon appreciation of evidence, the
F     courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact qua appellant-
      accused that he along with other accused murdered ‘S’– No ground
      warranting interference with the verdict of conviction.
            Evidence – Motive – When not important – Held: Where the
      case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye witnesses,
G     the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency or insufficiency
      of motive will not play such a major role as in the case which is
      based on circumstantial evidence.
            Evidence – Oral and Medical Evidence – Inconsistency
      between – Held: Oral evidence has to get primacy and the medical
H     evidence is basically opinionative.
                                    658
              PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                            659


       Criminal Trial – FIR – Delay in registration of – When not      A
fatal – Discussed.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 PW-1, mother of deceased ‘S’, is the star
witness for the prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 is clear that
the accused persons had caused the injuries as stated by her.          B
The overt act of the appellant-accused(A7) that he cut the
deceased with aruval had been categorically spoken by PW-1.
[Paras 9, 10][664-E; 665-B]
      1.2 The overt acts described by PW-1 in the FIR were
substantially corroborated by the medical evidence. Evidence of        C
PW-1 is cogent and consistent and her evidence is amply
supported by medical evidence and other evidence. Both the
courts below having recorded concurrent findings of fact rejecting
the contention of false implication, there is no ground to interfere
with such concurrent findings of fact. Upon proper appreciation        D
of evidence, the trial court has convicted the appellant/accused
for causing the murder of deceased ‘S’ which was affirmed by the
High Court. Upon appreciation of evidence, the courts below
recorded concurrent findings of fact qua appellant-accused that
he along with other accused caused the murder of deceased ‘S’.
There is no good ground warranting interference with the verdict       E
of conviction. [Paras 13, 21 and 23][666-A-B; 669-A, C-D]
      2. Oral evidence has to get primacy and the medical
evidence is basically opinionative. The testimony of the eye
witness cannot be thrown out on the ground of inconsistency.
When the opinion given is not inconsistent with the probability        F
of the case, the court cannot discard the credible direct evidence
otherwise the administration of justice is to depend on the
opinionative evidence of medical expert. The medical
jurisprudence is not an exact science with precision; but merely
opinionative. In the case in hand, the contradictions pointed out      G
between the oral and medical evidence are not so grave in nature
that can prove fatal to the prosecution case. [Para 14][666-B-E]
     3.1 For the occurrence at 05.00/05.30 PM on 19.08.1996,
FIR was registered at 08.00 PM. Of course, there was a delay of
two and half hours in registration of FIR; there was also delay in
                                                                       H
660            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     receipt of FIR by the Judicial Magistrate that is at 05.00 AM on
      20.08.1996. There was attack on PW-1’s son in the first part
      near the temple. Thereafter, in the second part, deceased was
      chased by accused persons and on reaching the paddy field,
      accused persons surrounded the deceased and attacked him.
      Therefore, it is quite clear that the entire occurrence did not
B
      take place in a split second. The occurrence was held in two
      parts and in those circumstances, it is quite natural that there is
      some time gap before the complaint (Ex.-P1) was lodged at 08.00
      PM. Deceased ‘S’ was brutally murdered with eleven incised
      wounds; naturally it must have taken some time for PW-1-sole
C     eye witness to come to her normal and then discuss with her
      relatives and then proceed to the police station which is situated
      at a distance of four kilometres, to lodge the complaint.
      [Para 16][667-C-F]
             3.2 So far as dispatching FIR, Head Constable (PW-10)
D     submitted that the distance between the police station,
      Veeravanallur and house of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmadevi
      was seven kilometres and due to this murder, the buses on the
      route from Tirunelvelli to Nagarcoil were not plying on that day
      and therefore, he had to travel to the house of Judicial Magistrate
      by walking. Courts below found that there is nothing abnormal in
E     the receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate as to affect the
      prosecution case. Delay in setting the law into motion by lodging
      the complaint is normally viewed by the courts in suspicion
      because there is possibility of concoction of evidence against the
      accused. In such cases, it becomes necessary for the prosecution
F     to satisfactorily explain the delay in registration of FIR. But there
      may be cases where the delay in registration of FIR is inevitable
      and the same has to be considered. Even a long delay can be
      condoned if the witness has no motive for falsely implicating the
      accused. In the present case, PW-1 had no motive to falsely
      implicate the accused. PW-1 seeing her own son being brutally
G     attacked, the effect of the incident on the mind of the mother
      cannot be measured. Being saddened by the death of her son, it
      must have taken sometime for PW-1 to come out of her shock
      and then proceed to police station to lodge the FIR. The delay of

H
               PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                                661


two and half hours in lodging the complaint and registration of             A
FIR and the delay in receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate was
rightly held as not fatal to the prosecution case. [Paras 17,
18][667-F-H; 668-A-C]
       4. Where the case of the prosecution is based on the
evidence of eye witnesses, the existence or non-existence of                B
motive, sufficiency or insufficiency of motive will not play such a
major role as in the case which is based on circumstantial evidence.
If the prosecution is able to prove its case or motive, it will be a
corroborative piece of evidence; but if the prosecution had not
been able to prove its case or motive or the motive suggested is
too slender, that will not be a ground to doubt the prosecution             C
case. When other evidence against the accused is clear and cogent
as in the present case, absence of motive or insufficiency of motive
is of no importance. [Para 20][668-E-F]
      State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and others (1999) 5 SCC
      96 : [1999] 3 SCR 529 – relied on.                                    D

                        Case Law Reference
[1999] 3 SCR 529                 relied on                 Para 14
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONL: Criminal Appeal
No. 1100 of 2009.                                                           E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2007 of the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007
      B. Karunakaran, S. Gowthaman, Advs. for the Appellant.
       M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi, Raja Rajesh Waran S., Advs.      F
for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment
dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench
in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007 in and by which the High Court      G
has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein thereby confirming
his conviction under Section 148 IPC, Section 435 read with Section 149
IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of
imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial court.
                                                                            H
662             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A          2. Kamala (PW-1) is mother of deceased Sankar and Iyyappan
      (PW-2). Vijayalakshmi is the wife of PW-2 and Abbas (PW-3) is brother
      of PW-1. The genealogy of the deceased party is as under:-
                             Kamala (PW-1-Complainant)


B
                                                             Abbas (PW-3)
                                                      Maternal Uncle of deceased


      Sankar (Deceased)   Iyyappan (PW-2)                Vijayalakshmi
C      Son of PW-1          Son of PW-1                  Wife of PW-2 and elder
                                                         daughter of A8
      Case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.1996 at about 05.00-05.30
      PM, Kamala (PW-1), mother of deceased Sankar, Iyappan (PW-2),
      brother of deceased and Abbas (PW-3), maternal uncle of deceased
      went in an auto to Harikesavanallur to see the child of PW-2 who was
D     born on 15.08.1996. Deceased Sankar along with Abbas (PW-3)
      followed them on a motor cycle. When they reached near Pilaiyar temple
      in Harikesavanallur, eight accused persons Balakrishnan (A1) having
      aruval, Subramanian (A2) having aruval, Jenakaran (A3) having knife,
      Mari @ Mariappan (A4) having knife, Raja (A5) having knife, Kasi
E     (A6) having aruval, appellant/accused Palani (A7) having aruval and
      Jayalakshmi (A8) (since dead) having match box surrounded the
      deceased Sankar. On exhortation by accused Jayalakshmi, accused
      Mari @ Mariappan stabbed deceased Sankar from the back and accused
      Jayalakshmi threw a lighted match stick into the petrol tank of the bike
      of deceased Sankar and burn it into fire. On seeing this, Kamala (PW-
F     1), deceased Sankar and Abbas (PW-3) ran in various directions. Kamala
      (PW-1) followed her son deceased Sankar. All the accused followed
      them. When they reached near the field, all the accused surrounded
      Sankar and accused Balakrishnan cut the deceased on the right shoulder
      and left neck with aruval; accused Jenakaran, Mari @ Mariappan and
G     Raja stabbed the deceased with knives; accused Kasi and appellant/
      accused Palani cut deceased Sankar with aruval. Profusely bleedings,
      deceased Sankar fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, Kamala
      (PW-1) went to Veeravanallur Police Station at about 08.00 PM and
      narrated the whole incident and lodged the complaint (Ex.-P1) with
      Ramaiah, Sub-Inspector (PW-11). On receipt of the complaint (Ex.-
H
   PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]                         663


P1), Sub-Inspector (PW-11) registered the FIR (Ex.-P11) under Sections      A
147, 148, 435, 341 and 302 IPC in Crime No.150 of 1996 against all the
accused.
       3. Dr. Ulagammal (PW-7) conducted post-mortem on the dead
body of deceased Sankar and after noting multiple injuries, issued post-
mortem certificate (Ex.-P6) opining that the death was caused due to        B
shock haemorrahage and multiple injuries. On 04.09.1996, Investigating
Officer made application to the court and took accused No.2, 4, 5 and 6
from judicial custody to police custody. Based on the disclosure
statements of A2, A4, A5 and A6, the weapons – aruvals of different
size (bill hooks) and knives (MO-17 to MO-20) were seized under Exts.
P26 to P30 from various places pointed out by the above accused.            C

       4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined
thirteen witnesses (PWs 1 to 13) and exhibited thirty three documents
(Ex.P1 to P33) and twenty material objects (MOs 1 to 20). The accused
were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating
evidence and circumstances and the accused denied all of them.              D

       5. Upon consideration of evidence of eye-witness Kamala (PW-
1) supported by medical evidence and other evidence, the trial court
convicted all the accused under Sections 148, Section 435 read with
Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
sentenced all of them to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, the      E
High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused and
also the appeals preferred by other accused No.1, 3, 5 and 6 and affirmed
the conviction of the appellant and sentence of imprisonment imposed
by the trial court. The High Court held that the testimony of eye-witness
Kamala (PW-1) is reliable and the same is corroborated by medical           F
evidence. The High Court held that the delay in registration of FIR was
not fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court allowed the appeal
preferred by accused No.2 and acquitted him.
      6. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the
testimony of sole eye witness-PW-1 is not credible and that she could       G
not have witnessed the occurrence at all and the courts below erred in
convicting the appellant based upon the testimony of PW-1. Learned
counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the occurrence took
place at 05.30 PM and the complaint (Ex.-P1) was lodged at 08.00 PM
and there was a delay of two and half hours in lodging the complaint
                                                                            H
664             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     which has not been explained by the prosecution. It was submitted that
      there was also delay in dispatching the FIR to Judicial Magistrate that
      the FIR said to have been registered at 08.00 PM and reached the court
      only on the next day early morning at 05.00 AM on 20.08.1996 and this
      raises serious doubt about the prosecution case.
B            7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of
      eye-witness PW-1 is natural and amply supported by medical evidence
      and evidence of PWs 2 and 3. It was submitted that both the trial court
      and the High Court found that evidence of PW-1 is credible, reliable and
      trustworthy and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below
      do not suffer from any infirmity. Learned counsel for the State further
C     submitted that the delay has been properly explained by the prosecution.
      Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PW-1 is
      amply supported by medical evidence and by the evidence of PWs 2
      and 3 and also corroborated by recovery of weapons from other co-
      accused. It was submitted that PW-1 has categorically stated about the
D     overt act of the appellant-accused No.7 and the findings recorded by
      the courts below is based upon proper appreciation of evidence warranting
      no interference.
            8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused
      the impugned judgment, evidence and materials placed on record.
E            9. Kamala (PW-1), mother of deceased Sankar, is the star witness
      for the prosecution. In her evidence, PW-1 stated that on 19.08.1996 at
      about 05.00/05.30 PM, she along with her younger son deceased Sankar
      had been to Harikesavanallur in order to see the new born baby of her
      elder son Iyyappan (PW-2). When they alighted from the auto near
F     Harikesavanallur Mukkuveetu Pillayar Koli, A1 to A7 armed with
      dangerous weapon like knife and aruval came towards them and at that
      time, Jayalakshmi (A8) shouted “why are you simply watching, cut and
      kill” and immediately Mari (A4) stabbed the deceased Sankar with knife
      on his back. Accused No.8 opened the petrol tank of the bike of deceased
      Sankar and put lighted matchstick inside it and burst it into fire. On this,
G     the deceased party ran into different directions to save themselves. PW-
      1 followed deceased Sankar.
            10. Regarding the second transaction of the occurrence which
      was in the paddy field, PW-1 clearly stated that when they reached in
      the paddy field, A1 to A7 surrounded Sankar and accused Balakrishnan
H
   PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]                            665


cut deceased Sankar with aruval on his right shoulder and left side of         A
neck. Accused Janakaran, Mari @ Mariyappan and Raja repeatedly
stabbed Sankar with knives. Accused Kasi and Palani (appellant) cut
Sankar with aruval. Sankar fell down with bleeding from his head and
died on the spot. The evidence of PW-1 is clear that the accused persons
had caused the injuries as stated by her. The overt act of the accused
                                                                               B
herein namely Palani (A7) that he cut the deceased with aruval had
been categorically spoken by PW-1.
       11. Assailing the evidence of PW-1, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that having regard to the place of occurrence – paddy
field with paddy of about one and half feet height, PW-1 could not have
been in a position to see the overt act of each of the accused. It was         C
further submitted that the evidence of PW-1 is not natural as she did not
even lift her son Sankar after the occurrence. It was contended that the
clothes of PW-1 were all mud-stained but there was no blood-stains
present on the clothes of PW-1 and the conduct of PW-1 is quite unnatural
and that she did not even lift the body of her son Sankar.                     D
       12. In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she did not lift her
son Sankar after his death. PW-1, however, stated that her clothes
were mud-stained. Merely because, no blood-stains were found on the
clothes of PW-1, her evidence cannot be doubted. Likewise, we find no
merit in the contention that PW-1 could not have witnessed the overt act       E
of the accused. As pointed out in Ext.-P6-Post-Mortem Certificate,
deceased Sankar sustained about eleven incised wounds and that the
body of the deceased was mutilated and the thumb and palmer aspect of
left index finger were missing. There were also deep cut injuries on the
back of the neck and several other deep cut injuries. The injuries inflicted
on the deceased were so deep that there could be no doubt that PW-1            F
had not witnessed the inflicting of injuries on Sankar even though the
paddy crops were about one and a half feet high.
       13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are
contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence and that all the
injuries as narrated by PW-1 are not corroborated as per the post-mortem       G
report. As per the opinion of PW-7-Dr. Ulgammal, the injuries inflicted
by the accused persons on deceased were caused by sharp edged
weapons like bill hook (aruval). In her cross-examination, doctor has
stated that it is possible that the injuries could be caused by any sharp-
                                                                               H
666             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     edged weapons like axe. PW-7 further stated that the width and the
      depth of injuries can be increased depending on the manner in which the
      weapon was wielded and injury was inflicted. The overt acts described
      by PW-1 in the FIR has been substantially corroborated by the medical
      evidence.
B           14. As per the alleged variance between the medical and ocular
      evidence concerned, it is well-settled that oral evidence has to get primacy
      and the medical evidence is basically opinionative and that the medical
      evidence states that the injury could have been caused in the manner
      alleged and nothing more. The testimony of the eye witness cannot be
      thrown out on the ground of inconsistency. In State of Haryana v.
C     Bhagirath and others (1999) 5 SCC 96, it was held as under:-
            “15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last
            word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court.
            If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged
            to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the
D           mind of a person regarding a fact situation………”
      When the opinion given is not inconsistent with the probability of the
      case, the court cannot discard the credible direct evidence otherwise
      the administration of justice is to depend on the opinionative evidence of
      medical expert. The medical jurisprudence is not an exact science with
E     precision; but merely opinionative. In the case in hand, the contradictions
      pointed out between the oral and medical evidence are not so grave in
      nature that can prove fatal to the prosecution case.
             15. So far as the contention of the appellant/accused that PWs 2
      and 3 have not stated anything about the second transaction in the paddy
F     field, as submitted by the learned counsel for the State, when the
      deceased was attacked by Mari (A4) and the motor-cycle was set ablaze,
      PWs 1 to 3 and deceased Sankar scattered and ran in different directions.
      PW-1 followed the direction in which the deceased ran that is towards
      the paddy field where the deceased was surrounded by the accused
G     persons. Even though, PW-1 shouted not to cut the deceased, the
      accused persons inflicted injuries on the deceased and also threatened
      PW-1. When PWs 2 and 3 ran in different directions, it is quite natural
      that they could not have seen the occurrence. The evidence of PWs 2
      and 3 is natural as they did not claim to be eye witnesses to the second
      transaction wherein the deceased was cut and stabbed at the paddy
H
   PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]                            667


field by accused including the appellant-accused No.7. The arguments           A
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that PWs 2 and 3
have criminal antecedents and were involved in other criminal cases are
not relevant to be reckoned with.
       16. Case of the prosecution is assailed on the ground that there
was delay in registration of FIR and that the FIR reached the court only       B
at 05.00 AM on the next day i.e. on 20.08.1996 after the inquest was
over. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only after the
inquest was over, complaint was prepared and FIR was registered and
that is why, the FIR is verbatim repetition of the inquest report. After
referring to the prosecution evidence, in particular, evidence of PW-10,
the courts below rejected the arguments of the defence as to the delay         C
in registration of FIR. For the occurrence at 05.00/05.30 PM on
19.08.1996, FIR was registered at 08.00 PM. Of course, there was a
delay of two and half hours in registration of FIR; there was also delay
in receipt of FIR by the Judicial Magistrate that is at 05.00 AM on
20.08.1996. There was attack on PW-1’s son-deceased Sankar in the              D
first part near the temple. Thereafter, in the second part, deceased was
chased by accused persons and on reaching the paddy field, accused
persons surrounded the deceased and attacked him. Therefore, it is
quite clear that the entire occurrence did not take place in a split second.
The occurrence was held in two parts and in those circumstances, it is
quite natural that there is some time gap before the complaint (Ex.-P1)        E
was lodged at 08.00 PM. Deceased Sankar was brutally murdered with
eleven incised wounds; naturally it must have taken some time for PW-
1-sole eye witness to come to her normal and then discuss with her
relatives and then proceed to the police station which is situated at a
distance of four kilometres, to lodge the complaint.                           F
      17. So far as dispatching FIR, Murugaiah, Head Constable (PW-
10) submitted that the distance between the police station, Veeravanallur
and house of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmadevi was seven kilometres
and due to this murder, the buses on the route from Tirunelvelli to
Nagarcoil were not plying on that day and therefore, he had to travel to       G
the house of Judicial Magistrate by walking. Here again, courts below
found that there is nothing abnormal in the receipt of the FIR by the
Magistrate as to affect the prosecution case.
     18. Delay in setting the law into motion by lodging the complaint is
normally viewed by the courts in suspicion because there is possibility of     H
668            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     concoction of evidence against the accused. In such cases, it becomes
      necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in
      registration of FIR. But there may be cases where the delay in registration
      of FIR is inevitable and the same has to be considered. Even a long
      delay can be condoned if the witness has no motive for falsely implicating
      the accused. In the present case, PW-1 had no motive to falsely implicate
B
      the accused. As pointed out earlier, PW-1 seeing her own son being
      brutally attacked, the effect of the incident on the mind of the mother
      cannot be measured. Being saddened by the death of her son, it must
      have taken sometime for PW-1 to come out of her shock and then proceed
      to police station to lodge the FIR. The delay of two and half hours in
C     lodging the complaint and registration of FIR and the delay in receipt of
      the FIR by the Magistrate was rightly held as not fatal to the prosecution
      case.
             19. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
      as per the prosecution case, the motive of the crime is misunderstanding
D     between the families of accused and deceased relating to a marriage
      proposal with respect to the Vijayalakshmi’s sister and deceased. It
      was submitted that the alleged motive is very weak and could not have
      been the reason for causing the murder of deceased Sankar.
             20. Where the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence
E     of eye witnesses, the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency
      or insufficiency of motive will not play such a major role as in the case
      which is based on circumstantial evidence. If the prosecution is able to
      prove its case or motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence; but
      if the prosecution had not been able to prove its case or motive or the
      motive suggested is too slender, that will not be a ground to doubt the
F     prosecution case. When other evidence against the accused is clear
      and cogent as in the present case, absence of motive or insufficiency of
      motive is of no importance.
            21. It was further submitted that PWs 2 and 3 have criminal
      antecedents having murder cases registered against them including the
G     murder of Jayalakshmi (A8). It was contended that PWs 1 to 3 have
      falsely implicated the accused persons because accused No.1-
      Balakrishnan’s mother gave a complaint against PW-2 in which he was
      sentenced to undergo four months imprisonment. It was submitted by
      learned counsel for the State that PW-2 was sentenced to undergo
H
   PALANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]                               669


imprisonment in the said criminal case after the present incident and not         A
before it. Both the courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact
rejecting the contention of false implication, we find no ground to interfere
with such concurrent findings of fact.
       22. It is pertinent to note that the other accused (A1, A4 and A6)
whose conviction was affirmed by the High Court have already served               B
their sentence and were released on remission granted by the State.
The appeals preferred by accused No.1, 4 and 6 have been dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2018.
      23. Evidence of PW-1 is cogent and consistent and her evidence
is amply supported by medical evidence and other evidence. Upon proper            C
appreciation of evidence, the trial court has convicted the appellant/
accused for causing the murder of deceased Sankar which was affirmed
by the High Court. Upon appreciation of evidence, the courts below
recorded concurrent findings of fact qua appellant-accused that he along
with other accused caused the murder of deceased Sankar. We do not
find any good ground warranting interference with the verdict of                  D
conviction.
       24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant-accused
is directed to surrender himself within a period of two weeks from today,
failing which he shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining
sentence.                                                                         E


Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal dismissed.



                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H