STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADUversusN. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS.

                         [2008] 13 S.C.R. 596
                                                                      ,.,...
                                                                                    "":'

A       STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU
                               v.
                N. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS.
               (Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002)
                       SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
B
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                       SHARMA, JJ.)
          Criminal trial - Conviction by trial Court - Acquittal by
    High Court on the grounds that there was delay in lodging FIR,
c   that the testimony of witness was not credible and serious in-
    iuries on accused were not explained- Interference with - Held:
    Singularly, these factors may not have adverse effect on pros-
    ecution version - But when combined effect of these factors
    are considered, case not made out for interference.
D
        Prosecution case was that charge-sheet was filed
  against 16 persons. Trial Court convicted 6 persons. The
  convicted accused filed appeal while informant filed revi-
  sion petition questioning the acquittal of rest of accused
  persons. High Court found that the evidence of PW-1
E lacked credibility and allowed the appeal filed by the con-
  victed accused persons and dismissed the revision peti-                          ----
  tion filed by the informant.
        In appeals to this Court, appellant-State contended
F that the  factors which weighed with the High Court to di-                   y -
  rect acquittal had no legal basis.
         Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
        HELD: Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected
G documents    in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the
  credibility of the prosecution version. But that is not the
  only factor which weighed with the High Court. Added to
  that, the High Court noted the artificiality of the evidence                 i      -
  of PW-1 and the non-explanation of injuries on the ac-
H                                596
           STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N.     597
                      RAJAMANICKAM & ORS.

    cused pe.rsons which were very serious in nature. The A
    combined effect of these factors certainly deserved con-
    sideration and the High Court rightly emphasized on them
    to hold that the prosecution has not been able to estab-
    lish the accusations. Singularly, the factors may not have
    adverse effect on the prosecution version. But when a B
    combined effect of the factors noted by .the High Court
    are taken into consideration, .the inevitable conclusion is
    that these are cases where no interference is called for.
    [Para 7] [598 F-H, 599-A]
         CRIMINALaPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal            c
    No. 668 of 2002
       . From ·the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2001 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 235 of 1994
r        S. Thananjayan, V.J. Francis, V. Balu, A. Radhakrishnan    D
    and Anupam Mishra for the Appellant.
       R. Shunmugashunaram, P. Vajravel, M. Babu, S. Prabu
    Ramasubramanian, Rakesh K. Sharma and Dr. R. Prakash for
    the Respondents.
                                                                    E
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
    the parties.
         2. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1636 of 2002.          F
          3. Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002 has been filed by the
     State questioning correctness of the judgment of a learned
    ·Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The appeal filed.by the
     respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was al-
     lowed while the criminal revision petition filed by PW-1, the G
     brother of the deceased was dismissed by the impugned judg-
     ment. Originally, 16 persons were named in the charge-sheet.
     Out of them , one. had died and one was absconding. The rest
     14 persons faced trial. The Trial Court convicted 6 out of them
     who had faced trial. Those six persons preferred the criminal H
    598      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2008) 13 S.C.R.

A appeal while the informant filed the revision petition question-
  ing the acquittal of rest of the accused persons. The High Court
  found that there Vv'.ere certain vital factors which rendered the
  prosecution version improbable. Some of the factors noted are
  the delayed despatch and receipt of the FIR and connected
s documents in the court of Magistrate. The non-explanation of
  injuries on some of the accused persons was held to be of con-
  sequence. It was held that there was a clash amongst the mem-
  bers of complainant party and the accused persons over politi-
  cal factors. The High Court noted that there was no explanation
c offered for the delayed receipt of the FIR and connected docu-
  ments, Exhs. P-1 and P-22. Added to that, the High Court found
  that the evidence of PW-1 lacked credibility and cogency. With
  these observations, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by
  the convicted accused persons and dismissed the revision
  petition filed by the informant.
0
        4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appel-
  lant-State and the informant submitted that the factors which
  weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal have no legal
  basis.
E        5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
    supported the judgment of the High Court.
         6. It is to be noted that A-8, who was one of the accused-
    respondents had died in the meantime.
F       7. Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected docu-
  ments in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the credibility of
  the prosecution version. But that is not the only factor which
  weighed with the High Court. Added to that, the High Court has
  noted the artificiality of the evidence of PW-1 and the non-ex-
G planation of injuries on the accused persons which were very
  serious in nature. The combined effect of these factors certainly
  deserved consideration and, according to us, the High Court
  has rightly emphasized on them to hold that the prosecution has
  not been able to establish the accusations. Singularly, the fac-
H tors may not have adverse effect on the prosecution version.
                 STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N.        599
                 RAJAMANICKAM & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

_.        But when a combined effect of the 'factors noted by the High       A
          Court are taken into consideration, the inevitable conclusion is
          that these are cases where no interference is called for. The
          appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
     J.
          D.G.                                      Appeals dismissed.
                                                                             B




-*