1 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2007

CHINNARAJ & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

This appeal is directed against the judgment of  

the trial court as well as the High Court whereby the  

six appellants have been convicted and sentenced to  

various terms of imprisonment for offences punishable  

under Section 302, 149 etc. of the IPC.

The facts leading to the appeal are as under:-

The  accused-appellants as also the complainant  

party were all residents of village Mallapuram. As per  

the evidence on record the complainants belonged to the  

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam whereas the  

appellants  were  members  of  the  Dravid  Munnetra  

Kazhagam.  The evidence also reveals the existence of  

acute  enmity  between  the  two  warring  families  on  

several issues including the grazing of cattle.   

On  8th June,  2001,  at  about  8:00a.m.,  the

2 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

appellants armed with deadly weapons such as knives,  

iron rods and sticks came towards the house  of P.W.1  

when they were stopped by the deceased Pachaya Pillai  

and his relatives who questioned them as to what they  

were doing at that place.  The appellants thereupon  

attacked Pachaya Pillai causing him serious injuries on  

the head and when the others, P.Ws.1 to 6,  who were  

close relatives of Pachaya Pillai, intervened on his  

behalf they too were caused injuries.  As a consequence  

of the injuries sustained, Pachaya Pillai fell to the  

ground.  He was thereafter removed to the Government  

Hospital at Kallakuruchi and was examined by P.W. 8 –  

Dr. Sundara Murthy who was then on duty who further  

referred  him  to  the  Government  Hospital,  Salem  on  

account  of  his  serious  condition.  The  injured  

witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 6, were also examined by P.W. 16  

– Dr. Uday Kumar and their injuries were recorded in  

the Accident Register Exhibits P8 to P13.  Intimation  

was  also  sent  to  the  Kallakuruchi  police  station  

whereupon P.W. 19 the Police Sub Inspector  went to the  

Government  Hospital  Kallakuruchi  and  recorded  the  

statement of P.W. 1 (Exhibit P1) and on its basis the  

formal  FIR  was  registered  on  24th January,  2001  at  

about 4:00 P.M.  P.W. 19 also went to the place of  

incident and made the necessary inquiries.  As Pachaya  

Pillai was in a serious condition, the offence under

3 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

Section  307  was  incorporated  as  well  and  further  

investigation  in  the  matter   was  taken  up  by  the  

Inspector, P.W. 20.   

After information  had been received from the  

Government  Hospital,  Salem  that  Pachaya  Pillai  had  

died, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was also added  

on  against  the  appellants.   The  dead  body  of  the  

deceased  was  also  subjected  to  a  post-mortem  

examination which was carried out by P.W. 17 - Dr. Ravi  

Shankar and he opined that the death had been caused  

due to severe head injuries.   

The trial court relying on the evidence of P.Ws.  

1 to 6, all injured and very close relatives of the  

deceased, as also the medical evidence which supported  

the ocular version that the injuries could have been  

caused with knives, sticks and rods, and that the FIR  

though recorded belatedly still cast no doubt on the  

prosecution story, convicted and sentenced the accused/  

appellants in the following terms:-

Rank  of  the  charges accused

Conviction  and  sentence.

1st accused 147,  148,  323,  324,  325,  307  and  302  read  with 149 IPC

R.I.  for  7  years  for  an  offence  under Section 307 I.P.C. and Life  Imprisonment for an offence under  Section 302 IPC and the sentences  should run concurrently.

2nd accused         -do- R.I. for two years for an offence  under Section 324 IPC, RI for seven  years for an offence under Section  307  read  with  149  IPC  and  life

4 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

imprisonment for an offence under  Section 302 read with 149 IPC and  the  sentences  should  run  concurrently.

3rd accused          -do- Each six months simple imprisonment  for an offence under Section 323 (2  counts) IPC seven years RI for an  offence under Section 307 read with  149 IPC and Life imprisonment for  an  offence under Section 302 read  with  149  IPC  and  the  sentences  should run concurrently.   

4th accused           -do- Six months simple imprisonment for  an  offence  under  Section  323  IPC  three years RI for an offence under  Section 325, seven years RI for an  offence under Section 307 read with  149 IPC and Life imprisonment for  an  offence under Section 302 read  with  149  IPC  and  the  sentences  should run concurrently.

5th accused           -do- Six months simple imprisonment for  an  offence  under  Section  323  IPC  seven years RI for an offence under  Section 307 read with 149 IPC and  Life imprisonment for an  offence  under Section 302 read with 149 IPC  and  the  sentences  should  run  concurrently.

6th accused          -do- Six months simple imprisonment for  an  offence  under  Section  323  IPC  seven years RI for an offence under  Section 307 read with 149 IPC and  Life imprisonment for an  offence  under Section 302 read with 149 IPC  and  the  sentences  should  run  concurrently.

As  already  indicated  above,  the  judgment  and  

sentenceof the trial court has been confirmed by the  

High Court in appeal.   

Mr.   Balasubramanian,  the  learned  senior  

counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the  

genesis  of  the  incident  had  been  suppressed  by  the  

prosecution  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  some  incident  

prior to the present one involving the same parties had  

taken place at 7:30A.M. and had been reported to the  

police  but  no  investigation  had  been  made  in  that

5 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

direction, or if made falsified the prosecution story  

and had, therefore, been suppressed.  As a corollary to  

this argument, he has argued that the injuries on the  

person  of  the  accused  had  not  been  explained  which  

caused a doubt as to what had actually happened on the  

crucial  day  and  as  cross  cases  had  been  registered  

inter se the parties, they ought to have been tried by  

a  common  forum.   He  has  in  support  of  the  second  

argument, relied upon State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead)  

& Ors. 2003 (9) SCC 426  to the effect that cross cases  

should be tried together and that if the genesis of the  

incident  was  suppressed  then  the  prosecution  should  

suffer.   

The learned counsel for the State, has however,  

submitted that prosecution story  had been given by  

P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 all injured witnesses, and there was  

absolutely  no  reason  whatsoever  to  doubt  their  

testimony.   He  has  also  submitted  that  there  was  

undoubtedly some delay in the lodging of the FIR and  

perhaps some flaw in the investigation of the case as  

the defence version had not been investigated by the  

police, but these factors by themselves could not take  

away  the  effect  of  the  evidence  of  six  injured  

witnesses.   He  has  finally  submitted  that  the  

complainant  party  should  not  be  made  to  suffer  on  

account of a faulty investigation.  He has cited State

6 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

of Karntaka v.  K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 721 in  

support of this plea.   

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and gone through the record very carefully.

Concededly there are six injured witnesses all  

belonging to the family of the deceased.  It is also a  

fact that all the appellants are very closely related  

to each other, the relationship inter se being A2 to A4  

are the sons of A1, A5 is the son-in-law of A1 and A6  

father of A5.  It is, therefore, apparent that the  

entire family has been roped in for this incident.  As  

already mentioned above, it has come in the evidence of  

P.W. 1 and P.W.7 that the relations between the parties  

was  gravely  strained  not  only  because  of  rival  

political affiliations but also on account of other  

issues  such  as  grazing  of  cattle.   It  is  in  this  

background that the evidence in this matter will have  

to be examined.   

The  first  point  that  has  been  raised  by  the  

learned counsel for the appellant was as to the delay  

in the lodging of the FIR inasmuch as the FIR Exhibit  

P1 was not the first report of the occurrence, and even  

assuming it to be so, it had been lodged after a delay  

of  32  hours  and  as  the  said  delay  had  not  been  

explained, a serious dent in the prosecution's case had  

been made.  In this connection, we have  gone through

7 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

the evidence of P.W. 1 who was the brother-in-law of  

the deceased.  He stated that the police had taken a  

statement  from  him  in  the  Kallakuruchi  Government  

Hospital on the 23rd January, 2001.  He reiterated this  

statement  repeatedly  in  the  course  of  his  cross  

examination  as  well.   Likewise,  P.W.  3  Manimegalai  

deposed that the complaint had been lodged at about  

8:00 A.M. on the morning of 23rd January, 2001 but in  

the next breath pleaded ignorance as to whether it had  

been  lodged  on  that  day.   Likewise,  P.W.6-Panchali  

falsified that the police personnel had met her and the  

other injured witnesses at about 8 o'clock on the day  

of the incident and her statement had been recorded by  

the police in the hospital on that day.  We also see  

from the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 16, the two doctors,  

that information had been sent to the police station as  

per procedure soon after the injured had been admitted  

to the hospital.    To our mind, therefore, the fact  

that some statement had been recorded by the police on  

the 23rd January, 2001 is clear from the prosecution  

evidence itself.  P.W. 19,  the police officer who had  

recorded the FIR, however, disowned the statement made  

by P.W. 1 and insisted that the FIR had been recorded  

on  the  next  day  i.e.  24th January,  2001.   This  

statement is in stark contrast to the statement of the  

witnesses  who  had  stated  to  the  contrary.   Mr.

8 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

Balasubramanian, therefore, appears to be right when he  

contends  that  the  report  recorded  on  24th February,  

2001 was not the first report and that a statement  

recorded on 23rd January, 2001, had been suppressed by  

the prosecution.  The connected argument with regard to  

the delay in the lodging of the FIR, thus, becomes  

irrelevant in this background.

Mr.  Balasubramanian's  second  submission  has  

equal merit.  It has come in the evidence of P.W. 19  

and P.W. 20 that the appellants had also reached the  

hospital at about 8:00a.m. on the 23rd January, 2001  

and that they had gone to the hospital directly from  

the place of incident.  As per the prosecution story,  

the present incident had happened at about 8:00a.m.  

that is about half an hour after the first incident.  

The High Court has found that as the two incidents were  

separated not only in time but also by distance it  

would not have been necessary for the investigating  

officers to investigate the defence story.  We find  

this observation to be erroneous, in the light of the  

fact that if the appellants had gone straight to the  

hospital at 7:30 a.m., the question of their causing  

the injuries to the complainant party, a kilometre away  

at 8:00a.m. would not have been possible.  It appears  

that the warring parties had received injuries in one

9 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

and the same transaction and the finding of the High  

Court to the contrary, thus, appears to be against the  

record.  It  is  also  significant  that  the  police  had  

itself registered Crime No. 25/2001 with respect to the  

complaint  lodged  by  the  accused  and  during  

investigation it had transpired that the injuries had  

been received by them at almost the same time.  P.W.  

19, however, stated that despite the fact that the case  

had been registered, he had not cared to take into  

possession the injury certificates in respect of Crime  

No. 25/2001.  The evidence of P.W. 20 in respect of  

Rajadurai is even more categoric.  He deposed in his  

cross examination that he had heard that two incidents  

had taken place at the same time and place and both  

parties had received injuries during the course of that  

fracas.  He, further, went to say that though this  

information was with him, he had not made any inquiries  

even  from  the  investigating  Sub  Inspector  so  as  to  

ascertain the true state of affairs.  The inference  

that  has  to  be  drawn  from  these  lapses  is  that  a  

deliberate attempt to suppress the defence story had  

been  made.  It  is,  therefore,  obvious  that  as  cross  

cases  had  been  registered  with  respect  to  the  same  

incident and in the light of Mishrilal’s case (supra),  

in such a case would have been that they should be  

tried  together  irrespective  of  the  nature  of  the

10 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

offences  involved  so  as  to  avoid  a  conflict  of  

judgments at the hands of two different courts.  In the  

present matter, however, despite the police officers  

being  conscious  of  the  fact  that  both  parties  had  

suffered injuries in the same transaction it had been  

thought fit to file separate charge sheets.  This is  

contrary  to  the  dictum  laid  down  in  the  aforesaid  

judgment.   

In most cases that we have come across, it is often  

difficult to ascertain from the prosecution evidence  

as to whether some injuries had indeed been suffered  

by the accused but in the present matter we have some  

very categoric admissions by the injured witnesses as  

also  by  the  investigating  officers.   The  injured  

witnesses  have  been  very  categoric  that  the  first  

report with regard to the incident had been recorded  

on the 23rd January, 2001.   Likewise, P.Ws. 19 and 20  

were categoric in admitting that the injuries had been  

suffered  by  the  appellants  in  the  same  incident.  

These injuries remain  unexplained.  It is in this  

situation  that  this  Court  in  Babu  Ram  v.  State  of  

Punjab (2008) 2 SCC Criminal 727 held as under:

“It is well-settled law that in a  murder case, the non-explanation of the  injuries  sustained  by  the  accused  at

11 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

about the time of the occurrence or in  the  course  of  altercation  is  a  very  important  circumstance  from  which  the  court can draw the following inferences:

“1.   that  the  prosecution  has  suppressed the genesis and the origin of  the occurrence and has thus not presented  the true version;

2.  that the witnesses who have  denied  the  presence  of  the  injuries  on  the person of the accused are lying on a  most material point and therefore their  evidence is unreliable.

3.  that in case there is a defence  version  which  explains  the  injuries  on  the person of the accused it is rendered  probable  so  as  to  throw  doubt  on  the  prosecution case.”  [see Lakshmi Singh v.  State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 p. 401  para 12]

It is true, as contended by the learned State  

counsel,  that  the  statements  of  the  injured  eye  

witnesses  have  precedence  over  a  dishonest  

investigation.  However, this submission poses great  

difficulties and pitfalls for a court, as it becomes  

difficult to discover as to which of the two versions  

is correct; the one given by the accused or the one  

given by the prosecution, in the background that the  

investigator  has  not  done  his  duty  in  a  fair  and  

impartial manner.  The Court must, therefore, fall back  

upon its own experience and have an insight into the  

nature of the crime in an effort to determine as to  

what might have happened.  It is also significant that  

if material facts relevant to the matter are suppressed

12 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

by the prosecution, the tilt must be in favour of the  

accused.   Undoubtedly,  every  injury,  however  

insignificant on the person of an accused is not to be  

explained by the prosecution but when we have a large  

number  of  injuries,  a  faulty  investigation  and  

political and family rivalries between the contesting  

parties,  the Court has to draw its own conclusions.

We,  accordingly,  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  

the conviction of the accused-appellants.  It is stated  

by Mr. Balasubramaniam, that his clients are in jail.  

We direct that they shall be set at liberty forthwith  

if not required in connection with any other case.   

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 16, 2009.

13 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2007

CHINNARAJ & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

Vide  our  separate  reasoned  order,  we  have  

allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the  

appellants.   

It is stated by Mr. Balasubramaniam, the learned  

senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants  

are in jail. We direct that the appellants shall be set  

at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with  

any  other  case.    

The reasoned order to follow.   

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

14 Crl. A. No. 1337/2007

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 16, 2009.