IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 1514    OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.4310/2006)

   Munusamy               ...Appellant

Versus

   State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. ...Respondents                      

O  R  D  E  R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Appellant  was  the  first  informant.  He  examined  himself  as

P.W.-1 before the learned trial Judge. The First Information Report, in question, was

lodged  in  relation  to  an  incident  which  took  place  on  4.3.1998  alleging  that  the

respondent Nos. 2 to 10 came to the house of younger brother of the deceased( P.W.2)

and started quarrelling with him on the premise that the deceased(wife of P.W.1) had

made their sister's life miserable.  

A Panchayat was to be convened in respect of the said disputes

between the parties.  Panchayat, however, could not be held as its President( P.W.- 6)

had not been feeling well on the date on which it was to be held.

At about 10 p.m., the respondent No.2 to 10 came to the place of

occurrence. They abused the deceased saying:

"...you, whore, only because of you, our sister is separated and she will be in peace only if you die and you are the enemy."

-1-

Cut injuries were caused in the front side of  the head of the

deceased with a sickle. Second Respondent allegedly assaulted the deceased with iron

pipe on the back of her neck. The other two respondents were armed with sticks.

They  also,  allegedly,  assaulted  the  deceased.  P.W.2  having  intervened  was  also

assaulted.  The respondent No. 9 threatened P.W.7 that  he would  throw away  her

minor child into the well and at that time P.W.7 snatched her minor son and while

doing so, the third respondent inflicted cut on her minor son. Respondent Nos. 6 and

8 attacked P.W.7 with sticks. When P.W.13 intervened to stop the attack on the minor

child of P.W.7, his ear was cut by the third respondent with the sickle. In the said

occurrence, allegedly, P.W.7 and P.W.13 were also assaulted.

The learned trial judge recorded a judgment of conviction and

sentence finding the respondents guilty of commission of offence.  

At the instance of  the accused No.4, allegedly,  the weapon of

assault was also recovered.

The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment

set aside the said judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondents,

inter-alia,  holding;  (i)  presence  of  P.W.-1  at  the  place  of  occurrence  cannot  be

believed as the prosecution has failed to establish the same; (ii) it  is  doubtful that

Ex.P.1 is the real First Information Report; (iii) as P.W.-13 in his statement before the

Doctor informed him that he had been attacked by two known persons and seven

unknown persons, his statement before the Court that he knew all the persons from

before, cannot be relied upon; (iv) the actual place of occurrence as also the genesis

thereof has not been established by the prosecution.

The High Court, however, did not analyse the evidence adduced

by the prosecution as noticed hereinbefore.

-2-

 P.Ws.1,2,7,13  and 14  were  examined as  eye  witnesses.  The

manner in which the occurrence has taken place,  as has been noticed at some length

by the High Court itself in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, deserved serious

consideration.

    We are, thus,  of the opinion that it was obligatory on the

part of the High Court to assign sufficient reasons for reversing the findings of the

learned trial Judge. We are not considering the materials on record ourselves deeply

at this stage as interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgment is set

aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the appeal

preferred by the respondents afresh on merits.  

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the matter and all

contentions of parties shall remain open. The High Court is requested to consider the

desirability  of  disposing  of  the  matter as  expeditiously  as  possible  and preferably

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The appeal is allowed.

......................J.       [S.B. SINHA]

.....................J                                       [ CYRIAC JOSEPH ]

New Delhi, September 17, 2008.