Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2010
POSTMAN VENGAISAMY & ORS.
.....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF
POLICE & ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The present appeal survives only in respect of Accused No. 1
– Postman Vengaisami (A-1), Accused No. 11 – Thalaiyaripandi
(A-11) and Accused No. 15 – Vellachamy (A-15), as Accused No. 9
– Rathinettamatiyan (A-9), Accused No. 10 – Kotti @ Kotteswaran
(A-10) and Accused No. 12 – Neelamegavannan (A-12) have
completed their sentence and had since been released from
custody.
2) 15 accused were made to stand trial before Principal Sessions
Judge, Virudunagar District at Srivilliputtur. The learned trial court
Page 1 of 9
vide judgment dated December 7, 2007 convicted A-1, A-9, A-10,
A-11, A-12 and A-15 for the offences punishable under Sections
148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, whereas A-11 was also
sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 506 (Part II)
IPC. Thirumeni (A-4) and Neelamegam @ Valadukai Neelamegam
(A-14) died even before framing of charges by the learned trial
court, whereas other accused persons i.e. Karnan (A-2),
Krishnamurthi (A-3), Lingam (A-5), Poovalingam (A-6), Kesavan
(A-7), Ramalingam (A-8) and Arjunan (A-13) were sentenced for a
period of one or two years for the offences punishable under
Sections 342 and 324 IPC. Such accused did not file any appeal
before the High Court as well. However, in appeal by other
accused, the High Court confirmed the sentence imposed, except
in respect of Poovalingam (A-6), who was convicted for an offence
under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous
imprisonment.
One Chinnaperiaiyah (Father of Irulandi – PW-1) is the deceased.
3)
The prosecution case is that Baskaran (PW-4) bought goats valuing
about Rs.12,000/- from the deceased and has promised to pay the
amount after 20 days. On April 8, 2003, the deceased came to
Anaikulam to collect the amount from Baskaran. Baskaran (PW-4)
sent his wife Rathi (PW-5) to collect the money from the persons
to whom he had sold the goats. His wife received the amount but,
on her way, she was waylaid by the men belonging to Postman
Page 2 of 9
Vengaisami (A-1) and Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) and that they also
snatched the money. Baskaran (PW-4), Rathi (PW-5) and
deceased Chinnaperiaiyah went to police station to lodge a report
but while returning, Baskaran (PW-4), Rathi (PW-5) and deceased
Chinnaperiaiyah were attacked by the men belonging to
Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) due to which they sustained injuries. The
deceased Chinnaperiaiyah belonged to Village Kurunthankulam
whereas accused belonged to Nathakulam Village and both the
villages are coming under the jurisdiction of Veeracholan Police
Station.
4) After taking treatment, deceased and his son Irulandi (PW-1) went
to Anaikulam Village on April 25, 2003 to collect money from
Baskaran (PW-4). At that time, Ramar (PW-2), brother-in-law of
Baskaran (PW-4), was present. Baskaran (PW-4) told the
deceased Chinnaperiaiyah that he will pay the money next day.
Therefore, the deceased Chinnaperiaiyah stayed in the house of
Ramar (PW-2). It was on April 26, 2003, all the accused armed
with weapons surrounded Irulandi (PW-1), Ramar (PW-2) and the
deceased Chinnaperiaiyah. At that juncture, Thalaiyaripandi
(A-11) instigated the other accused to finish off the deceased. In
pursuance of the instigation given by Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), apart
from himself, Postman Vengaisami (A-1), Rathinettamatiyan (A-9),
Kotti @ Kotteswaran (A-10), Neelamegavannan (A-12),
Neelamegam @ Valadukai Neelamegam (A-14) and Vellachamy
Page 3 of 9
(A-15) attacked the deceased with aruvals (sword) on various
parts of his body. Irulandi (PW-1) was also attacked by Arjunan
(A-13) with aruval on his left hand whereby Poovalingam (A-6) hit
left shoulder of Ramar (PW-2). Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2)
went to Veeracholan Police Station at about 9:30 am on April 26,
2003. On the basis of complaint, FIR (Exh. P-13) was lodged for
various offences. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) were sent to
Thiruchuli Government Hospital for treatment, whereas the FIR
was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.
Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) were medically examined by Dr.
5)
Jayakumar (PW-13). After completion of investigation, accused
were made to stand trial. Before the learned trial court, the
prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including Dr.
Jayakumar (PW-13), informant and son of the deceased, Irulandi
as PW-1, Ramar as PW-2, Baskaran as PW-4 and his wife, Rathi as
PW-5. On the evidence led, the order of conviction was passed.
The High Court relying upon the testimony of Irulandi (PW-1) and
Ramar (PW-2), the injured witnesses as well as the evidence of
Baskaran (PW-4) and Rathi (PW-5), maintained the order of
conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.
6) Briefly, there are two incidents, one on April 8, 2003 in which
Baskaran (PW-4) and Rathi (PW-5) and the deceased
Chinnaperiaiyah have received injuries and the other on April 26,
Page 4 of 9
2003 in which Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) received injuries
whereas Chinnaperiaiyah lost his life.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the so-called
7)
injured witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) have been
introduced by the prosecution and they have not received injuries
in the manner set up by the prosecution. It is contended that the
injuries received on such witnesses are simple injuries which are
not proved to be inflicted by the accused. It is also argued that all
the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, therefore, their
testimony cannot be believed by the learned trial court and
affirmed by the High Court. It is also contended that the
statements of material witnesses i.e. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar
(PW-2) are contradictory, therefore, in the absence of
corroboration of the evidence of such witnesses, their statements
cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in
1
Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan to contend that the
statements of Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) cannot be split to
grant benefit to some co-accused while maintaining conviction of
others when all accused stand on the same footing and deserve
parity. Learned counsel also relied on Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh
2
v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh & Ors. to submit that the
prosecution has failed to prove common object to commit a murder
on the basis of evidence led, therefore, conviction of the appellants
1
(2016) 12 SCC 389
2
(2017) 3 SCC 261
Page 5 of 9
with the aid of Section 149 is not tenable. Reliance is also placed
3
upon in the case of Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu . In the
said case, it was held that though the maxim “ falsus in uno, falsus
in omnibus ” has no application in India but the rule of caution is
required to be applied while examining the statement of witnesses
whose part statement is not found to be truthful.
8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in
the present appeal.
9) Irulandi (PW-1) has deposed that, on April 26, 2003, he along with
his father Chinnaperiaiyah and Ramar (PW-2) were on their way to
Anaikulam, when they were surrounded by accused persons who
were led by Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) and armed with swords.
Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) exhorted other accused to cut the deceased
in pieces as planned. It is thereafter, Vengaisami (A-1) chopped up
right elbow of his father but he was immobilised by Karnan (A-2),
Krishnamurthi (A-3) and Thirumeni (A-4) whereas Lingam (A-5),
Poovalingam (A-6), Kesavan (A-7) and Ramalingam (A-8)
immobilised Ramar (PW-2). Rathinettamatiyan (A-9) chopped the
right hand wrist of his father by sword, Kotti @ Kotteswaran (A-10)
chopped the right side forehead of his father, Thalaiyaripandi
(A-11) hit left side rib of his father, whereas Neelamegavannan
(A-12) hit in the right side of the back side of his father.
3
(2019) 5 SCC 67
Page 6 of 9
Chinnaperiaiyah died at the spot. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar
(PW-2) escaped from the clutches of the accused, then Arjunan
(A-13) chopped the left hand below elbow of Irulandi (PW-1)
whereas Poovalingam (A-6) hit left shoulder of Ramar (PW-2).
Though, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that
Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) are introduced witnesses but
the lengthy cross-examination conducted on them does not lead to
any such inference. Dr. Jayakumar (PW-13) has examined Irulandi
(PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) on April 26, 2003, the same day when
Chinnaperiyayya lost his life. Chinnaperiyayya, whose postmortem
report is Ex.P-28, shows that multiple injuries were noticed by the
Doctor. Such injuries corroborate the oral testimony of Irulandi
(PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2). Ex.P-29 is the report in respect of
injuries suffered by Irulandi (PW-1) measuring 6x1x½ cm near left
hand. He has also provided medical report (Ex.P-30) on Ramar.
He stated that Ramar has sustained the following injuries:
“1. Wound on the left bullocks. The pain was stated by
patient swelling on the right fact. Pain felt not welling to
get treated as influent treated as out patient.
2. At the right ankle pray was taken and found that
right Kibula Bone was broken the said injury was termed
as severe injury. Certificate issued the same is accident
report Ex.P.30.”
Baskaran (PW-4), in his statement, also confirmed the incident of
10)
April 8, 2003. He stated that he, along with Chinnaperiaiyah, were
beaten up by the accused. He further stated that he sustained
injuries on the face below both the eyes. The statement of Rathi
Page 7 of 9
(PW-5), wife of Baskaran (PW-4), is also to the same effect.
11) The oral testimony of material witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and
Ramar (PW-2) is corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas
the motive of taking life of the deceased is made out from the
incident which happened on April 8, 2003. Therefore, the findings
recorded by the courts below are plausible findings in law.
12) In Ram Laxman’s case, the Court found that the High Court
disbelieved with witness in respect of the other accused but
believed such witness in respect of the other accused. That is not
a case of some omissions or contradictions of statement but the
credibility of witness itself was doubted. Such is not in the present
case. Some contradictions arise on account of perception of the
witnesses and due to passage of time. But the creditability of the
witnesses has not been shaken. Therefore, such witnesses are
reliable and credit worthy witnesses.
13) In Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh case, this Court was examining the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court when the High
Court maintained sentence against only one accused. The appeal
by the complainant was against the acquittal of the accused. This
Court held that armed with weapons like axe, iron pipe and spear,
the common object to commit an offence can be inferred from the
weapons used and the violent manner of the attack but the
question examined was whether they can be attributed with the
knowledge about murder. The present is not such a case. Here,
Page 8 of 9
on the exhortation of Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), the accused who
were armed with sword had raised murdered assault on the
deceased and also injured Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2).
Since there is a history of earlier attack on the deceased on April 8,
2003, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take
life of Chinnaperiaiyah. The judgments referred to are not
applicable to the facts of the present case. It is cumulative effect
of the evidence led by the prosecution which determines whether
unlawful assembly had a common object to commit culpable
homicide amounting to murder.
14) In Mahendran’s case, reiterating the well-established principle
that follows “ falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ” has no application in
India and is not a rule of law. Therefore, even if some part of the
statement is found to be unproved, entire testimony of witnesses
cannot be rejected.
15) In view thereof, we do not find any error in the judgment of
conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants are granted three
months’ time to surrender before the competent court.
.............................................J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
.............................................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 24, 2019.
Page 9 of 9