REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  632    OF 2005

RAJA GOUNDER & ANR. ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF TAMIL NADU ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the parties in  

extenso.

We  find  that  two  Courts  have  found  against  the  

appellants more particularly that PW.1 the first informant,  

the wife of the deceased, is also the sister-in-law of the  

appellants  as  the  deceased  and  the  appellants  were  

brothers.  It has also come in evidence that the relations

between  the  parties  were  strained  on  account  of  a  land  

dispute and this was the motive for the murder.   

It has  been contended by Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, the  

learned counsel for the appellants, that there were several  

suspicious circumstances in the prosecution evidence in as  

much that the FIR had been lodged after 13 hours and there  

was no explanation forthcoming to explain the delay and  

this  delay has been utilized by the prosecution to evolve  

a false story and that PW.2 the sister of the deceased and  

the appellants who had been cited as witness had not been  

-2-

produced as a witness.  In addition, it has been argued

that in the FIR, PW.1 had referred to two injuries caused  

to the deceased but eight injuries had been detected during  

the post-mortem.   

We find that all these issues have been examined by  

the Courts below and it has been found that the delay in  

the lodging the FIR had been explained as the incident had  

happened at  10.00 p.m. at a little distance from the house  

of the deceased, and PW.1, a young woman, would have been  

in a great distress and had first sent information to her  

parents  in  their  village  some  distance  away  and  had  

thereafter  left  for   the  police  station  to  lodge  the  

report.  We find that the conduct of PW.1 was perfectly  

compatible with the behaviour of a young widow who had seen  

a  brutal  attack  on  her  husband.   It  is  true  that  no  

independent witness has been examined but in the background  

that  a  dispute  existed  within  the  family,  independent

witnesses would not ordinarily be available. We thus have  

absolutely no reason to doubt the evidence of PW.1 as she  

would be the last person to involve the appellants in a  

false case leaving out the real assailants.  We are not  

surprised  that  the  mother  of  the  deceased   and  the  

appellants  who  had  been  cited  as  a  PW  but  had  instead  

appeared in Court as a defence witness,  as this  is a  

common tendency in fratricides, and particularly where   

-3-

parents are involved as witnesses in as much that after  

tempers cool and there is time for reflection they find

that while one child has been murdered and the other faces  

the prospect of serving  a long sentence on their evidence  

which will, without a doubt, be believed, invariably  makes  

their resile from their police statements. We also find no  

discrepancy vis.-a-vis. the ocular and medical evidence. We  

notice that the incident happened in the dead night and it  

would not have been possible for  the PW.1 to see all the  

blows striking  the deceased  and to identify every blow  

given by the appellants in the darkness, would have smacked  

of tutoring of the witness.  Two courts have found against  

the appellants on a minute  appreciation of the evidence on  

this aspect as well.  We are thus not inclined to interfere  

in this appeal.

Dismissed.

                   .................J.

       (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                     ....................J.

                                  (R.M. LODHA) New Delhi,

    September 28, 2010.