(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Vijayan @ Viji & Anr. _____________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
The State of Tamil Nadu ____________________________ Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1538/2010, decided on February 12, 2018
TheOrder of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Five accused persons including the present appellants (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) were charge-sheeted and were tried, inter alia, for the offence of murder. Four of the accused persons were convicted by the learned trial Court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court while acquitting Accused Nos. 3 and 4 maintained the conviction and sentence insofar as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. Hence the present appeal.
2. PW-1 – John Christopher and PW-29-Raja were examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. There is evidence of recovery of blood-stained knives and clothes at the instance of the accused persons. This has been sought to be proved by the prosecution by examining the panch witnesses. Though the learned trial Court accepted all of the aforesaid evidence, the High Court discarded the evidence of P.W.29 as the said witness had failed to identify any of the accused persons in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). The evidence with regard to recovery was also discarded by the High Court as the panch witnesses had turned hostile. The High Court was thus left with the evidence of the sole surviving eye-witness i.e. PW-1.
3. The High Court took into account the fact that PW-1 in the TIP had identified accused Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) but had failed to identify accused Nos. 3 and 4. It is on the aforesaid basis that the conviction of the accused appellants had been ordered while at the same time acquittal of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (which is not in challenge before us) was recorded.
4. Learned counsels for the appellants have urged several grounds to satisfy the Court that the evidence of PW-1 ought not to be believed, particularly, in a situation where the High Court had thought it proper not to rely on the same evidence insofar as accused Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned. Learned counsels have pointed out that the evidence of PW-1 itself shows that he was working as Head Constable at C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station and that on the day of occurrence he was doing duties at C-1 Flower Bazar Police Station Range, out post booth. It is urged by the learned counsels for the appellants that there is no record to show assignment of duties of PW-1 in C-1 Flower Bazar Police Station, out post booth so as to believe the prosecution story that it is PW-1 who had witnessed the occurrence after coming out of the C-1 Flower Bazar Police Station, out post booth. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants that the conduct of PW-1, if he was present at the site, in not removing the deceased to the Hospital is unnatural which shows a fair amount of incredibility in the evidence of PW-1.
5. PW-1 – Head Constable of C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station had stated on oath that at the relevant point of time on the date of occurrence he was working at C-1 Flower Bazar Police Station, out post booth. Nothing to discredit the said testimony has emerged in his cross-examination. No contrary material has also been brought on record. In such circumstances, it will not be necessary to insist on proof of the said statement to be established only on production of relevant Police Station records by the prosecution as claimed by the learned counsels for the accused appellants.
6. The sole basis on which the conviction of the accused appellant Nos. 1 and 2 has been ordered by the High Court is the narration of sequential events with great clarity by PW-1; the absence of any inconsistency or contradictory evidence in the cross-examination so as to discredit the said witness; and the fact that the said witness has identified accused appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in the TIP.
7. Having considered the evidence of PW-1 in the aforesaid light, particularly, the clarity in the narration of the evidence as to how the accused persons have chased the deceased and the detailed manner in which the criminal assault was made on the deceased we are left with no doubt that the evidence of PW-1 sans the evidence of PW-29 and the panch witnesses would constitute sufficient and cogent material to maintain the order of conviction ordered by the learned trial Court. We, therefore, find no fault with the view taken by the High Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and maintain the conviction of the accused appellants.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1538/2010
Vijayan @ Viji & Anr ______________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
The State of Tamil Nadu ____________________________ Respondent
(AND IA NO. 82934/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND IA NO. 82936/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA NO. 18540/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND IA NO. 18542/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 12-02-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR
Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Consequently, all pending applications are disposed of.
———
