http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  972 of 2004

PETITIONER: SEEMAN @ VEERANAM

RESPONDENT: STATE, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2005

BENCH: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: JUDGEMENT

P.P.NAOLEKAR, J.

               Three accused persons viz., Seeman, Neelagiri and  Leelavathi, were tried for committing murder of one Murugan,  under Section 302 IPC.  Accused \026 appellant no.1 was convicted  and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions  Court.  The other two accused persons were acquitted.  The said  conviction and sentence, having been confirmed by the High  Court, the appellant challenged the same before this Court by  filing this appeal. The prosecution case, in short is that the  deceased Murugan was the resident of Village Chithakkur.   Three years prior to the occurrence, deceased Murugan and a girl  named Kani fell in love and eloped from the Village.  They were  brought back by the villagers.  After some time, Kani was  married to some other person and deceased Murugan also got  married to some other girl of a nearby village.  On account of  this incident,  the accused persons had grudge to grind against  the deceased, having brought bad name to the family and were  awaiting an opportunity to take revenge.  The deceased was  advised by the well-wishers to leave the Village and settle down  at some other place.  He settled at Village Kariappati.  On the  day of the incidence, i.e., 26.1.92 deceased came to Chithakkur  in search of his grandmother.  At the Village, he was informed  that his grandmother has left the Village and has gone to a place  Thirukkani to collect her pension.  The information was given to  him by PW2 \026 Raja @ Perumal.  Thereafter, the deceased along  with Raja @ Perumal proceeded towards the bus stand so that  the deceased could catch a bus.  At the bus stop when the  deceased along with PW-2 were awaiting for a bus, they  saw  accused no.2 at the bus stop who stared at the deceased.   Apprehending that some untoward incident  may happen, he was  advised to go to the residence of PW-1-Danam @  Balasubramanian.  In the meanwhile the bus came and stopped at  some distance from the place where they were standing and the   deceased rushed towards the bus.  At that time accused no.3  holding broom in her hand accosted the deceased as to why he  was running and asked him to stop.  Suddenly, accused no.1  appeared at the bus stop and attacked the deceased with patta  knife and inflicted number of injuries.  The deceased fell down  on the spot and succumbed to his injuries.  PW1 lodged the FIR  immediately after the incident claiming that he himself, one  Jayaraj and Raja witnessed the incident.  The postmortem on the  dead body was conducted by PW-7 - Dr. Edwin Joe who found  the following injuries on the person of the deceased. 1.      Transverse cut injury and sides of neck  21 cms. Length x 5 cms. X 9 cms., the right end

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

is 8 cms. Below and front of right ear, the left  end is 7 cms. below and back of the left ear and  0.5 cm. below chin.  The wound is found to have  cut the underlying muscles, wind pipe between  thyroid and hyoid bone, food pipe, the left  carotid artery and jugular veins on both sides  and cutting the 4th cervical vertebrae 4 x 0.5 x 2  cms. and the underlying cord partially.  The  edges are clear cut.

2.      An oblique skin deep incised wound 6  cms. length lateral aspect of middle of right arm.

3.      A vertically oblique cut wound left  fronto-parietal region 5 x 1 cm. cutting the  underlying bone 10 cms. above left earlobe.

4.      A flapping cut injury 4 x 3 x 2 cms.  (muscle deep) on the right posterior occipital  region with a skin flap hanging downwards 3  cms. lateral to the midline.

5.      Scratch abrasion 3 cms. length top of  right shoulder.

6.      Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm. and 0.5 x 0.5 cm.  inferior angle of right scapula.

The Sessions Court convicted Appellant No.1 relying on  the statement of PW1 and PW2 and drew corroboration to their  testimony from medical evidence.  The other two accused were  acquitted giving benefit of doubt.  The High Court has only  relied upon the statement of PW2 as an eye-witness and found  corroboration to his statement from the medical evidence.  The  evidence of PW1 was relied upon only for the purposes of  setting the law into motion by lodging an FIR. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the  conviction of A-1 contending that: (i) the statement of PW1 being the sole eye-witness, cannot be  relied upon for convicting the accused, particularly when he is  the close relative of the deceased and when the independent  evidence was available with the prosecution; (ii)  the presence of  PW2 at the place of incident itself is doubtful.  In fact it was the  brother of PW2, Raja who was named as an eye-witness in the  FIR and not PW-2 Raja @ Perumal. Apart from this PW2’s  statement in regard to other acquitted accused having been  discarded by the Court, the statement, as regards the  accused  appellant,  does not inspire confidence and (iii) it is further urged  that the statement of PW-2 is not fully supported by medical  evidence.  The injury which has been attributed to have been  caused by the appellant on the back of the deceased, was not  found in the postmortem report.  All these infirmities  individually and cumulatively create a doubt as to whether PW1  was at all an eye-witness as claimed by the prosecution and the  conviction cannot be based on the testimony of  sole witness.                 It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot  be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or  the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible.   The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject  his statement in totality.  In such a case, it is the paramount duty  of the court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of  evidence of the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is  found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on  the ground that the witness is an interested witness.    Caution is  to be applied by the court while scrutinizing the evidence of the  interested  sole witness.  The prosecution’s non-production of  one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by  itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the  evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution  case.  It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and  not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged  by the court to place credence on the statement.                 The FIR was lodged by PW-1 in the present case who  was not found to be an eye-witness by the High Court.   Admittedly, FIR does not name Raja @ Perumal as an eye- witness.  The FIR contains the name of Raja as an eye-witness.   It has also come in evidence that the name of the elder brother of  PW2 is also Raja and on this basis it is urged that it is this Raja  who is the elder brother of PW-2, that has witnessed the  occurrence but he was not examined by the prosecution.   Therefore, the statement of PW-2 could not have been relied  upon by the Court.  From the evidence of Investigating Officer it  reveals that immediately after the incident, I.O. reached the spot  and prepared the inquest report \026 Exb.P13.  The name of Raja @  Perumal is written in column no.3 as a witness which shows  that  immediately after the incident Raja @ Perumal has been referred  as an eye-witness.  During the course of investigation, the police  also recorded  the statement of Raja @ Perumal and not that of  Raja who is the elder brother of PW-2.  Upon careful reading of  the statement of PW-2 it appears to us that he was present at the  spot when the incident took place.  It has come in his evidence  that he has accompanied Murugan, the deceased from his place  to the bus stop whereas the elder brother has left the house for  his tuitions.  We have no manner of doubt that it is PW-2 who  has witnessed the occurrence.  Accused nos. 2 and 3 were  acquitted not because the statement of PW-2 was not relied upon  but they were given benefit of doubt as their alleged acts were  not mentioned in the FIR by PW-1.  Apart from this, PW-2’s  statement that A-2 came to the bus stop and stared at the  deceased and A-3 holding broom in her hand questioned him as  to why he was running and asked him to stop when he was  rushing towards the bus in no manner implicate those accused  persons in commission of crime.   The statement even if relied  upon does not indicate that they instigated the accused-appellant  to attack the deceased or to commit a crime. In the circumstance,   discarding that portion of the evidence does not in any manner  affect the veracity of the  evidence of this witness as regards the  accused  appellant.                 PW-2 while describing the incident, has deposed that A- 1-appellant Seeman had inflicted injury on the neck of the  deceased by patta knife and, thereafter caused cut on the right  side of his head and further inflicted cut on the neck and that he  has also inflicted injuries on the back.  It is submitted by the  learned counsel that no injury was found on the back of the  deceased and, therefore, the medical evidence does not  corroborate the statement of PW-2.  It is to be noticed that the  duration of the occurrence was short.  The injuries on the  deceased were inflicted with quick succession and it is too much  to expect from a witness in such circumstance to narrate the  exact injuries caused on a person of the deceased.  The  genaralised statement as regards the injuries would be more  credible than the particularized statement of location of injuries  on the body when the injuries were caused in quick succession  and in short time.  Moreover, there is every possibility of the  first injury being caused from the back side of the deceased.  On   scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2 and the medical evidence we  are of the opinion that medical evidence corroborates the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

statement of eye-witness, PW-2.  Both, the sessions court and the  High Court, after scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2 has relied  upon the statement and we do not find discernible discrepancy in  the evidence of PW-2 not to place reliance on his evidence.  For  the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.