Holding

The High Court’s acquittal was unsustainable; the convictions under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act stand.

Summary

Four accused (A‑1 to A‑4) attacked the deceased with an aruval and metal‑tipped sticks, causing his death. The incident was witnessed by PW‑1 and PW‑3, whose eye‑witness testimony was accepted by the trial court, which convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Madras High Court acquitted them, relying on alleged delays in the FIR and inquest report, the omission of the deceased’s name in an earlier FIR, and the presence of partly digested food in the stomach. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s conclusions were unsupported, that the eye‑witness evidence was credible, and that procedural omissions did not vitiate the prosecution case. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal, reinstated the convictions, and ordered the respondents to surrender to custody.

Issues considered

The adequacy and credibility of eye‑witness testimony of PW‑1 and PW‑3.
Whether the alleged delay in filing the FIR and inquest report defeats the prosecution case.
The significance of the omission of the deceased’s name in an earlier FIR.
Whether the inquest report must name all witnesses for the evidence to be valid.
The relevance of partly digested food found in the deceased’s stomach to the time of death.
The correctness of the High Court’s acquittal under Sections 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294(8), s. 302, s. 323, s. 324, s. 326, s. 341, s. 506(II)

Subjects

murderconvictionacquittaleye‑witness testimonyFIR delayinquest reportArms Actcriminal appealevidentiary assessment

Judgment

(2008] 16 S.C.R. 614

A STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
v.
RAJENDRAN & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 7.55 of 2001)
"NOVEMBER 25, 2008
B
. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
..L
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
s. 302134 - Four accused attacking a person
indiscriminately with 'aruva/' and metal tipped stick causing
his death - Evidence of eye'-witnesses adduced - Conviction
by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: Judgment of
o High Court is full of abrupt conclusions and contrary to
evidence on record - No basis for arriving at such conclu~ions
, indicated - There wa$ nothing to discard evidence of eye-
' witnesses - Judgment of .High Court being indefensible, set
aside. - Arms Act, 1.9:59 - s.25.
E Respondents nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted for murder
of the brother-in-law of PW-5 on the allegations thafthey,
·armed with 'aruval' and metal.tipped stick, ·on 17.9.1989
at about 6 p:m. attacked him indiscriminately causing his
death. The incide~t was witnessed by PW-1 and PW-3, the
F sister and the mother of PW-5 as also by PW-2. PW-1
gave a complaint to the police and the FIR was registered
at 7.00 p.m. It was the case of the prosecution that there
was enmity between PW-5 and the accused and earlier
on one occasion A-2 had assau'lted PW-5 of which the
G latter lodged an FIR. In another incident A-3 while in the
company of A-1 and A-4 assaulted PW-5 and at that time
J
he was saved by the deceased, and both went to the ''
police station to lodge an FIR. Since the deceased was
coming in support of PW-5 and his family members, the
H 614
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 615
TAMIL NADU v. RAJENDRAN & ORS.

accused finished him off. The trial court convicted the A
accused u/s 302 IPC. Three of the accused were also
convicted u/s 25, Arms Act. But, as the High Court
acquitted the accused, the State and the complainant filed
the appeals.
B
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court's judgment is full of
abrupt _conclusions and contrary to the evidence on
record. The High Court has considered certain factors to
be material whereas in fact they are not so. Non-mention C
of the name of the deceased in the company of PW 5 in
Ext.P-5, the FIR of the earlier incident, has been
considered to be a vital omission. No basis for such a
conclusion has been indicated. There was nothing to
discard the evidence of the eye witnesses. [Para 6] [621- D
B-C]

1.2. The High Court erred in concluding that there was
delay in dispatch of information and inquest report,
casting doubt on authenticity of the FIR. Conclusions E
arrived at are totally without foundation. The evidence of
PW 8 is clear and cogent as to why the documents
reached the court late. There is not even any discussion
as to why the explanation given was not acceptable.
Similarly on the basis of the presence of partly digested F
food found on post-mortem, the High Court came to a
conclusion on purely surmises doubting the time of
occurrence. [Para 6] (621-0-F]

1.3. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court that
the investigating officer should have examined G
somebody else to conclude that PWs 1 and 3 were
present at the scene of occurrence is legally
unsupportable. The inquest report need not contain the
names of all the witnesses. In any event the name of PW
1 was stated. There is no discussion as 'to in what manner H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 suffered from any infirmity. ~
. The judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set
aside. (Para 6] [621-G-H; 622-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 755 of 2001.
8
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2000 of the
bligh Court of.Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 262
of 1991.

c WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2001.

V. Kanagaraj, S. Thananjayan, V.G. Pragasam, Ashwarya
Sinha, Aabhas. Parimal and Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the
o Appellant.

Sushil Kumar, V. Balachandran for the Respondents.

Ttie Judgment of the Court was delivered by .

E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 755 of
0

2001 has been filed by the State wh ile Criminal Appeal No. 756
of 2001 has been filed by the informant.

2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the judgment of a
F Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of
·the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') so far as the respondents 1 to
4 are concerned and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1915
(in short the 'Arms Act') so far as respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are
G concerned. Learned Sessions Judge, Tirunvelli held them guilty
·and· sentenced them to imprisonment for life for the first offence
but no separate sentence was imposed for the later offence.

3. ·Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
H follows: '
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL 617
NADU v. RAJENDRAN & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
. I

Ruby is the elder sister of P .VV.I. Thiraviya Nadar A
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was her husband.
P.W.3 is the mother of P.Ws.I and 5. P.W.5 was empJoyed as a
driver in the Government Transport Corporation. At about 9.00
a.m. on 11-03-1989 when P.W.5 was to catch a bus in the bus
stand to go to his village, A2 and two others came there and B
assaulted P.W.5. who lodged a complaint before the police at
the Palayamkottai Police Station. Head Constable, P.W.12
received that complaint at 11.30 a.m. on that day and registered
it in Crime No. 906/89 for offences punishable under Sections
326 and 506 (II) l.P.C. Ex.P-4 is the printed F.l.R. for that crime. c
On 14-09-1989 at 10.00 a.m. P.W.5 was coming out of his work
place in the company of the deceased. The younger brother of
P.W.5 was selling lottery tickets opposite to the work place of
P.W.5. A3 assaulted P.W.5 with a cycle chain, which was
attempted to be prevented by P.W.5. Al and A4 were also by
D
the side of A3 at that time. P.W.5 informed the control room of
the police over phone and the police arrived at the scene. Al,
A3 and A4 ran away from the scene. P.W.5 and the deceased
went to the police station at Palayamkotai arid gave a complaint
to Constable, P .W.6 which was registered by him in Crime No.
E
1016/89 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and
506(11) IPC. Ex.P-5 is the F.l.R. At 12.00 noon on that day, A3
appeared at the police station and gave a complaint, which was
registered in Crime no. 1017/89 for offences punishable under
Sections 294(8), 323 and 324 l.P.C. P.W. 12 registered that
~
complaint and Ex.P-6 is the printed F.l.R. F

The occurrence had taken place on 17-09-1989 at about
6.00 p.m. P.W.1, along with his mother P.W.3 was walking
towards their residential colony from west to east. The
deceased was coming· in the opposite direction. On being G
) questioned, the deceased informed them that he was going to
finalise purchase of tender coconuts and he was on his way to
Melamuneerpallam for that purpose. Two hundred feet east of
that place, the house of A2 is situated. A2, with an aruval and
Al, A3 and A4 each with a stick, came there. A2 asked the H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A · d~ceased as t9 the whereabouts of P.W.5~ The deceased
replied that P.W.5 had gone to Madras. Thereafter A3 and A4
stated that it is the deceased, who always comes in support of
P.W.5 and his family and therefore he must be finished off.
Immediately A2 attempted to cut the deceased with an aruval,
B but the deceased ran towards south. All the four accused
· · chased him. Behind the house of one Athiappan @ Muthiah,
the deceased was surrounded by all the four accused. _A2
attacked on the head of the deceased with "aruval". Thiraviya
Nadar thwarted that attack with his left hand but that attack
c landed on his left elbow. Al, with a metal tipped stick, stabbed
on the right side chest of the deceased. A4 stabbed on the left
side back of the deceased. They stabbed him indiscriminately.
Thiraviya Nadar fell down on the spot and all the accused
persons. ran away with weapons of offence. Thiraviya Nadar
0 died. P.Ws.2 & 3 had seen the occurrence. P.W.2 is a
neighbour of P~W. 1. P.W.1 went to Munneerpallam Police
Station to give a complaint. M.O. 1 is the weapon of offence in
the hands of A2 and M.0.2 is the weapon of offence in the
hands of A 1. Thiraviya Nadar was wearing a white colour shirt
E at the time of assault and the entire shirt became blood stained.
M.0.3 is the shirt and M.0.4 is the lungi worn by him. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. As the
ac.cused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.

· The trial court found the evidence of the eye witnesses 1
F · and 3 to be cogentand credible and held the ae;cused persons
guilty as aforenoted. Before the High Court the primary stand
was that there was serious doubt- as to preparation and
registration of the Ex.P1, it was pointed out that Ex.P1 came
to be registered around 7 P.M. on 17.9.1989 at the police
G station which is hardly 2 k.m. away from the scene of
occurrence. According to prosecution, the occurrence had
taken place on 17.9.1989 at about 6 P.M. But Ex.P1 according.
to PW! was sent at3.45 a.m. on 18.9.1989 alongwith P18, the
inquest report. The names of PWs. 2& 3 were not found
H rnentioned in the inquest report. Therefore, it was submitted that
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL 619
,, NADU v. RAJENDRAN & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
•
i
the preparation of Ex.P1 is shrouded in mystery. The High Court A
noted that the evidence offered by the prosecution against the
accused was that the deceased was always in the company
of PW S and whenever PW S was in trouble, the deceased
used to help him. A reference was made to Ex.PS, information
that is the FIR in Crime No. 1016of1989. There was an earlier 8
FIR Ex.P4 in Crime No. 3SS of 1989. According to prosecution,
when Ex.PS, information was lodged by PWS, deceased was.
in his company and both of them went to the police station.
According to the High Court Ex. PS does not discl.ose the
presence of the deceased at or about the time when PW S was
G
sought to be attacked by the accused. High Court observed
that except oral evidence of PWs. 1& 3 that PW S was always
found in the company of the deceased, there was no other legal
material on record. The omission to mention about the presence
of the deceased in the company of PW S when he lodged
Ex.PS- information with the police was found to be a suspicious
D
circumstance. It was observed that the motive ascribed was very
weak. It was further noted that there was an element of doubt
as to why A2 would ask the deceased about the whereabouts
of PW S. Evidence shows that the deceased answered by
stating that PWS has gone to Madras. High Court was of the E
view that some material should have been brought on record
to show that PW S was not actually in town and had gone to
Madras or any other place. The High Court thereafter came to
the conclusion which according to us, is totally absurd that it
•i was not possible to infer from the evidence of PWS that he had F
gone to Madras and, therefore, the very question by A2 to the
deceased and the answer that came out appears to be artificial.
Probably, according to the High Court the prosecution wanted
to have a platform from which they wanted to develop their case.
It was r,1lso found that there was considerable delay in sending G
) Ex.P1 to P? to the court. It was therefore held that the credibility
of Ex. P 1 to P7 were in serious_ doubt and therefore the
prosecution case was vulnerable.

...,, Additionally, it was held that certain partly digested food
H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008) 16 S.C.R.
',

A articles were found in the stomach of the deceased. According
to the High Court, evidence should ·have been led to show as
toat what point of time the deceased took his last meal.

It was also held that the evidence of PWs 1 & 3 shows that
they could not have been present at the place of occurrence
B
as the investigating officer had not ex~mined anybody to f
conclude that PW 1&3 were present at the spot of occurrence.
It was also noted that in the inquest report, the name of PW 3
was not there and, therefore, he was not present. Accordingly,
as aforesaid, the acquittal was directed.
c
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
conclusions of the High Court are not only contrary to evidence
on record but also are based on surmises and conjectures.
Th~re was really no. delay in sending the FIR and/or inquest
D report to the court. The suggestions given by the accused
probabilised the presence of the eye witnesses. It was indirectly
accepted in the cross examination that A 1, A3 and A4
repeatedly stabbed the deceased with velsticks but the
suggestion was that ~he. witnesses had not counted the number
E of times the stabs were given by A 1, A3 and A4. The reason
why the documents reached magistrate's court late has been
explained by PW 8 whose evidence has not at all being
discussed. So far ~s the inquest report is concerned, it is not
necessary that names of all the witnesses should be mentioned.
Even otherwise the name of PW 1 has been specifically noted. ~-
F
jhat was sufficient. So far as the partly digested food is
concerned, the doctor has categorically stated that in the
absence of the time when the last meal was taken, it could not
have been inferred. The doctor has categorically stated that the
time of death was the time as stated by the eye witnesses.
G
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent f.
submitted that there was partly digested food as found by the
doctor PW 10. The inquest report does not show the presence
of PW 3, so, in any e:vent PW1 whose name has been stated
H becomes the solitary witness. The foundational facts are in ----
'
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL 621
NADU v. RAJENDRAN & ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

doubt and the view taken by the High Court is a possible view A
and so there is no scope for interference as the High Court
has considered the totality of the circumstances and there was
manipulation of times.

6. To begin with, we find the High Court's judgment is full
8
of abrupt conclusion.s and some times contrary to the evidence
on record. The Hig~ Court has considered certain factors to
be material whereasi in fact they are not so. For example the
non-mention of the riame of the deceased in the company of
PW 5 in Ex.P5 has been considered to be a vital omission.
No basis for such a conclusion has been indicated. There was C
nothing to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses on the
ground that material should have been shown to show that PW
5 was actually not in town and had gone to Madras or any other
place. It is surprising that the High Court rests its view on a
totally unfounded conclusion that the question put by A2 and D
the answer by PW5 appear to be artificial. So far as the delay
in sending Ex.P1 and P2 is concerned, the evidence of PW 8
is clear and cogent as to why the document reached the court
late. There is not even any discussion as to why the explanation
given was not acceptable. So far as the presence of partly E
digested food is concerned, the High Court came to a
conclusion on purely surmises that it can be reasonably
presumed that the deceased had taken food before the
occurrence had taken place and the presence of food particles
postponed the time of occurrence. It again came to an abrupt F
and absurd conclusion that probably the time of occurrence
could have been fixed after 7 .30 or 8 PM on the day in
question. The High Court came to another erroneous
conclusion that PW 8 had carried Ex.P18. The material on
record clearly shows that it is not really so. The conclusion that G
> the investigating officer should have examined somebody else
to conclude that PWs 1 and 3 were present at the scene of
occurrence is legally unsupportable. As rightly submitted, the
inquest report need not contain the names of all the witnesses.
In any event the name of PW 1 was stated. There is no H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A discussion as to in what manner the evidence of PWs 1 & 3
suffered from any infirmity. The Higfi Court seems to have been
obsessed with the idea that there was alleged delay in dispatch,
casting doubt on authenticity of the FIR, the inquest report.
Conclusions arrived at are totally without foundation. The High
B Court's order is indefensible and is set aside.

7. The appeals are allowed. The respondents shall
surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of
sentence.

C RP. Appeals allowed.