RAJA GOUNDER & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                       (2010] 11 S.C.R. 838


A                    RAJA GOUNDER & ANR.
                                 V.
                     STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                (Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2005)
                      SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
B
         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.)

        PENAL CODE, 1860:

c      s. 302 - Fratricide - Property dispute among brothers -
  Conviction by courts below - Pleas of delay in FIR, non-
  examination of independent witness, person cited as PWs
  deposing as OW, discrepancy in oral testimony and medical
  evidence ~ HELD: All these issues have been examined by
D courts below - Incident occurred in the night, delay in lodging
  FIR by young widow has been satisfactorily explained - Since
  dispute existed within the family, independent witness would
  not ordinarily be available - There is nothing unusual that the ·
  mother of the deceased and the accused, who had been cited
  as PW, appeared in court as a OW - There is no discrepancy
E vis-a-vis the oral and the medical evidence - It would not have
  been possible to the eye-witness to identify every blow given
  by the assailants - The Court is not inclined to interfere with
  the judgments of the courts below - Delay in lodging FIR -
  Evidence - Person cited as PW, deposing as OW - Variance
F in ocular version and medical evidence.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 632 of 2005.

G       From the Judgment & Order dated 09.07.2004 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. A. No. 573 of 2001.

        K. Sarada Devi for the Appellants.

        S. Thananjayan for the Respondent.
H                               838
RAJA GOUNDER & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 839


    The following order of the Court was delivered                  A

                            ORDER

    We have heard learned counsel for the parties in extenso.

     We find that two Courts have found against the appellants      B
more particularly that PW.1 the first informant, the wife of the
deceased, is also the sister-in-law of the appellants as the
deceased and the appellants were brothers. It has also come
in evid~nce that the relations between the parties were strained
on account of a land dispute and this was the motive for the        c
murder.

     It has been contended by Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, the learned
counsel for the appellants, that there were several suspicious
circumstances in the prosecution evidence in as much that the
                                                                    D
FIR had been lodged after 13 hours and there was no
explanation forthcoming to explain the delay and this delay has
been utilized by the prosecution to evolve a false story and that
PW.2 the sister of the deceased and the appellants who had
been cited as witness had not been produced as a witness. In
addition, it has been argued that in the FIR, PW.1 had referred     E
to two injuries caused to the deceased but eight injuries had
been detected during the post-mortem.

     We find that all these issues have been examined by the
Courts below and it has been found that the delay in the lodging F
the FIR had been explained as the incident had happened at
10.00 p.m. at a little distance from the house of the deceased,
and PW.1, a young woman, would have been in a great distress
and had first sent information to her parents in their village some
distance away and had thereafter left for the police station to G
lodge the report. We find that the conduct of PW.1 was perfectly
compatible with the behaviour of a young widow who had seen
a brutal attack on her husband. It is true that no independent
witness has been examined but in the background that a ·
dispute existed within the family, independent witnesses would
                                                                    H
    840     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.


A not ordinarily be available. We thus have absolutely no reason
  to doubt the evidence of PW.1 as she would be the last person
  to involve the appellants in a false case leaving out the real
  assailants. We are not surprised that the mother of the
  deceased and the appellants who had been cited as a PW but
B had instead appeared in Court as a defence witness, as this
  is a common tendency in fratricides, and particularly where
  parents are involved as witnesses in as much that after tempers
  cool and there is time for reflection they find that while one child
  has .been murdered and the other faces the prospect of serving
C a long sentence on their evidence which will, without a doubt,
  be believed, invariably makes their resile from their police
  statements. We also find no discrepancy vis.-a-vis. the ocular
  and medical evidence. We notice that the incident happened
  in the dead night and it would not have been possible for the
  PW.1 to see all the blows striking the deceased and to identify
0
  every blow given by the appellants in the darkness, would have
  smacked of tutoring of the witness. Two courts have found
  against the appellants on a minute appreciation of the evidence
  on this aspect as well. We are thus not inclined to interfere in
  this appeal.
E
       Dismissed.

    R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.