Dismissed

Subramaniyam Arul Kulasingam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Mar 2020CRL A(MD)/300/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence for importing explosives and residing without valid permission. While finding prosecution evidence reliable despite minor discrepancies, the court acquitted the appellants on the charge of rigorous imprisonment and ordered surrender.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; conviction approved, sentence reduced from rigorous to simple imprisonment; accused directed to surrender within 8 weeks.

Subramaniyam Arul Kulasingam Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP

¶3

Petitioners/Accused namely 1.Subramaniyam Arul Kulasingam @ Ramesh @ Mainthan Siva and 2.Selvarasa @ Selvan was released on bail as per order of this court dated 26.11.2014 made in MP(MD) No.1 of 2014 in CRL A(MD)No.300 of 2014.

¶4

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶5

DATED: 09.03.2020

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No.300 of 2014

¶9

1.Subramaniyam Arul Kulasingam @ Ramesh @ Mainthan Siva

2.Selvarasa @ Selvan

: Appellants/Accused

Vs.

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Q Branch, CID Police Station, Trichy (Crime No.1/2010)

¶14

: Respondent/Complainant

¶15

PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and order dated 30.10.2014 made in S.C.No.185 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli.

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.C.Jeganathan

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

*****************

¶20

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused 1 & 2, challenging the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli in S.C.No.185 of 2013 on 30.10.2014.

¶21

2.The gist of the charges framed against the appellants/Accused 1 & 2 and findings/sentence of the trial Court are as noted below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/14

¶23

¶24

*Name of* *Accused*	*Charges*	*Finding*	*Sentence*
1.Subramaniyam	120 I.P.C, 14	Both of the	each of the accused
Arul	(a) (b) and 14-	accused	was sentenced to
Kulasingam @ Ramesh @	A(b) of Foreigners Act,	found guilty under	undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
Mainthan Siva	1946, 5(a) of	Sec. 14(a)	years and to pay a
(A-1)	Explosive	(b) of	fine of Rs.1,000/-
and	Substances Act,	Foreigners	and in default of
2.Selvaraja @	1908 and	Act, 1946,	payment of fine, the
Selvan(A-2)	Section 10(b)	as amended	accused shall
	(ii), 13(1)(2)	by the	undergo rigorous
	of the Unlawful	Foreigners	imprisonment for two
	Activities	(Amendment)	months, for the
	(Prevention)	Act, 2004	offence under
	Act, 1967 and	and Section	Section Sec. 14(a)
	Section 10(b)	5(a) of	(b) of Foreigners
	(ii), 13(1)(2)	Explosive	Act, 1946, as
	of the Unlawful	Substances	amended by the
	Activities (Prevention)	Act, 1908	Foreigners (Amendment) Act,
	Act, 1967.		2004 and each of the
			accused was also sentenced to undergo
			RI for two years and
			to pay a fine of
			Rs.1,000/- and in
			default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous
			imprisonment for two
			months, for the
			offence under
			Section under
			Section 13(2) read
			with 13(1) (d). The
			sentences will run
			concurrently.

¶25

3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:i)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Q Branch CID initially registered a case against A-1 viz., Chandrakanthan Nagarasa @ Sathish @ Tamil and A-2 viz., Subramaniyam @ Arulsingam @ Ramesh @ Mainthan Siva and A-3 viz., Selvaraja @ Selvan, who are the citizens of Srilanka. On the basis of reliable information, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 conducted a raid and during the raid, they secured

¶26

2/14

¶27

¶28

A-1/ Chandrakanthan Nagarasa @ Sathish @ Tamil on 20.06.2010 at about 10.30 hours and recorded his confession statement and seized 1500 ordinary detonators and 200 electric detonators. Pursuant to A-1's confession, second accused was arrested, from whom, 1500 ordinary detonators and 200 electric detonators were seized and the third accused was arrested on the same day and from whom, 1900 ordinary detonators and 30 electric detonators were seized. The accused persons were belong to the outlawed association of LTTE, which has been declared as a banned organization in India as per the notification in S.O.No.1090(E) dated 14.05.2010 – G.O.M.S.No.446-T.N.Public (SC) dated 17.05.2010. The accused have gained entry into India without passport, visa and they have visited India by hatching a conspiracy for the purpose of smuggling of explosive materials for unlawful activities.. The Controller of Explosives of the Government of India has examined the detonators. Thus, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 120 I.P.C, 14(a) (b) and 14(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946, 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 10(b) (ii), 13(1)(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. After registration of the case and before the committal of the case, the first accused viz., Chandrakanthan Nagarasa @ Sathish @ Tamil did not attend the case proceedings and hence, the case as against A-1 was split up by the learned Judicial Magistrate and numbered as P.R.C.No.37/2013 and during the committal proceedings, the second accused Subramaniyam @ Arulsingam @ Ramesh @ Mainthan Siva and third accused/ Selvaraja @ Selvan were cited as A-1 and A-2.

¶29

(i)P.W.1-Rajiv Gandhi, when he was working as a Q-Branch CID in the Trichy Office, on the basis of the secret information received, he along with two Head Constables, Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant enquired one Chandrakanthan Nagarasa, arrested him and recorded a confession statement from him. He also recovered 1500 ordinary detonators and 200 electric detonators and also a travel bag (M.O.1) from him under a seizure mahazar/Ex.P.2. Then, he prepared a special report/Ex.P.1 and handed over the seized materials to the Inspector of Police. The admitted portion of the confession statement is Ex.P.3. Thereafter, on the basis of confession given by the said Chandrakanthan Nagarasa, he arrested the 1^st accused Arul Kulasingam and recovered 1500 ordinary detonators and 200 electric detonators. He also arrested 2^nd accused Selvarasa and recovered 1900 ordinary detonators and 30 electric detonators. M.Os.2 & 3 were also recovered from them. The seizure mahazar in respect of A-1 and A-2 was marked as Ex.P.4.

¶30

ii)P.W.2-Rajendran who was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police and P.W.3-Mathiyalagan, who was working as the Special Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspector of Police in Q-Branch CID Office, Thanjavur and P.W.4-

¶31

3/14

¶32

¶33

Kanagaraj, who was working as the Village Administrative Officer in Kottapattu Village along with his Assistant/Kaliyamoorthy, due to a special official duty, accompanied P.W.1, when 1st accused and 2^nd accused were arrested by the Police party and detonators were recovered from them under seizure mahazars.

¶34

iii)P.W.5-Danalakshmi, was a Srilankan refugee. She has deposed that she was in contact with the accused Sathish initially. Thereafter, she disconnected her contact with the said Sathish.

¶35

iv)P.W.6-Vanniyaperumal, who was working as the Commissioner of Trichy City Municipal Corporation, has given his consent on 11.11.2010, to register a case against the accused persons.

¶36

v)P.W.7-Ramu, was working as the Inspector of Police in Trichy Bomb Detecting and Deactivating Department, as per the orders of the Commissioner of Trichy City Municipal Corporation and also the orders of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy (Ex.P.8), along with Police party, defused the entire detonators (i.e 4990 ordinary detonators and 430 electric detonators) on 27.08.2010. In this regard, he submitted a special report/Ex.P.9 to the learned Judicial Magistrate. He also taken photographs before and after firing of detonators and submitted the copies of photos to the Inspector of Police, Rangasamy.

¶37

vi)P.W.8-Palani was a landlord, who rented his house to one Ramesh/1^st accused in this case.

¶38

vii)P.W.9-Jayakumar, who was also a tenant under P.W.8 has known one Mahesh, who was also one of the accused in this case. Mahesh was a neighbour of P.W.9.

¶39

viii)PW.10-Justin Raja, who was an employee of Raja Explosives, Udayalipatti, Pudukkottai deposed that on the basis of a letter received from Q-Branch CID Office, Trichy, has given his consent to safeguard the detonators in their godown. He also stated about the defusal of the detonators.

¶40

ix)P.W.11-Venugopal, when he was working as the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai, he defused 1 ordinary detonator and 1 electric detonator on 12.07.2010 out of 4990 ordinary detonators and 430 electric detonators.

¶41

x)P.W.12-Thangaraj has deposed that when he was working as a Manager in AB Mansion, Vayalur Road, Trichy-17, he has seen the 1^st accused.

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

4/14

¶44

¶45

xi)P.W.13-Rajagopal, when he was discharging his duty as Principal Secretary to Internal Affairs, Government of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms.No.571 (Internal Affairs) dated 23.07.2012, he issued permission for initiating criminal proceedings against Chandrakanthan Nagarasu, Subramaniam, Arul Kulasingam, Selvarasu under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and that proceedings was marked as Ex.P.15.

¶46

xii)P.W.14- Subramanian was working as watchman in the Sri Jai Educational College. He was later considered as hostile witness.

¶47

xiii)P.W.15- S.Chandravathi was the second wife of the second accused viz., Selvarasu @ Selvan. She has stated that the accused was doing the painting work.

¶48

xiv)P.W.16- G.Rengasamy, when he was working as the Inspector of Police in Q Branch CID, Trichy on 20.06.2010, has registered a case in Cr.No.1/2010 against one Chandrakanthan Nagarasa, Subramanian, Arulkulasingam @ Ramesh @ Mainthan @ Siva and Selvarasu @ Selvan, on the basis of the report/Ex.P.1. Then, he enquired and arrested them. The second accused voluntarily handed over 1500 ordinary detonators (O.D) and 200 Electric detonators (E.D) from his bag. The third accused voluntarily handed over 1900 ordinary detonators (O.D) and 30 Electric detonators (E.D) from his bag. Then, he took the accused persons to the Police Station, conducted body check up and put them in lock-up. Then, he visited the place of arrest of the second and third accused and prepared observation mahazars Exs.P.17 and 18. Then, he enquired the prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 and recorded their statements. On 21.06.2010, he produced the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Trichy and sent them to court custody. Thereafter, on the same day, he enquired the prosecution witness P.W.5- Danalakshmi, Siva @ Sivarooban, Iyngaran, Sri Rajan and P.W.12-Thangaraj and recorded their statements. Then, he sent the seized detonators to the custody of the Court. Thereafter, considering the protection of the detonators, as per the order of the Court, he received the detonators and handed over them to Raja Explosives, owned by one Selvam, situated at Udayalipatti, Pudukkottai, Keeranur. He also sent a letter/Ex.P.21 to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Trichy in this regard.

¶49

xv)P.W.16, on 01.07.2010, after getting permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Trichy, took the accused to Q Branch Office, Trichy and enquired them till 03.07.2010. Since the accused Chandrakanthan Nagarasa reiterated the same confession given by him before P.W.2-Rajendran, he did not obtain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any other statement from him. On 02.07.2010, he enquired the

¶50

5/14

¶51

¶52

accused Nos.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. On 03.07.2010, he handed over all the accused to court custody. He has also made arrangements to conduct detonator examination in Udayalipatti. Then, he enquired P.W.10, the house owner and wife of the second accused and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he enquired the neighbourhood and house owner of the third accused and recorded their statements. On 11.08.2010, he produced the Srilankan passport/Ex.P.22 of accused No.1 before the Court. After getting permission from the Court, on 27.08.2010, he took the seized detonators and deactivated them. Then he enquired P.W.7 and recorded his statement. He re-enquired P.W.10 and recorded his fresh statement.

¶53

xvi)On 22.10.2010, after completing the investigation, he laid a rough final report before the Regional Assistant Director (Incharge), Crime Branch Investigation Department, Trichy against the accused persons. Thereafter, on 08.11.2010, he submitted a requisition letter to the Trichy City Police Commissioner to file final report against the accused persons under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. On 12.11.2010, permission was obtained from the Trichy City Police Commissioner. Thereafter, on 15.11.2010, he submitted a requisition letter to the Q Branch Police Commissioner, Chennai in order to obtain permission from the Tamil Nadu Internal Affairs Ministry, Secretary, Chennai, to file final report against the accused persons under the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967. On 08.09.2012, after obtaining permission from the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Internal Affairs Ministry, Chennai and after completing all the formalities, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 120(b) r/w 10 (b)(ii), 13(1)(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, 14(a) (b) and 14(a)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

¶54

4.The accused were furnished with relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then the accused were questioned. They pleaded not guilty.

¶55

5.To substantiate the charges against the accused in trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 22 were marked and M.Os.1 to 3 were produced. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances and evidence, they replied that a false complaint has been foisted against them before the respondent police and pleaded innocence. In order to disprove the case of prosecution, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked.

¶56

6.Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge, by a judgment dated 30^th October, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2014, found the accused guilty under Section 14(a) (b) of

¶57

6/14

¶58

¶59

Foreigners Act, 1946 amended by the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004 and under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months for offence under Section 14(a)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946, amended by the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004 and also sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months for offence under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. (Total fine is Rs.4,000). Further, the trial court directed that the sentences awarded to A-1 and A-2 shall run concurrently. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Criminal Appeal.

¶60

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the documents carefully.

¶61

8.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that during the pendency of appeal, A-2/2^nd appellant passed away. Hence, this appeal against A-2 is abated.

¶62

9.In the present case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 16 and out of them, P.Ws.1 to 3 are Q Branch CID Officers. Initially, they secured the absconding accused. On the basis of the confession statement obtained from him, these accused persons have been implicated in this case. According to him, without any material, the accused persons cannot be implicated in the present case. Further, according to him, P.Ws.1 to 3 made use of P.W.4, who the Village Administrative Officer and created a false recovery mahazar, as if the contraband was seized from the appellants. Hence, the evidence of P.W.4 is not trustworthy. Hence, the recovery made from the accused persons, relying upon the evidence of P.W.4 is not legally sustainable. Further, there was a variation with regard to the detonators defused by P.Ws.11 and 7. Even though P.W.11-Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai, in his evidence has deposed that out of 4990 detonators and 430 electric detonators, he defused 1 ordinary detonator and 1 electric detonator on 12.07.2010 and after deducting the above detonators, remaining detonators i.e 4899 ordinary detonators and 429 electric detonators were there, the said evidence is not corroborated by P.W.7. Whereas P.W.7, who is an Officer of Q Branch in his evidence has stated that he defused the entire detonators (i.e 4990 detonators and one 430 electric detonators) on 27.08.2010 and P.W.11 defused the detonators on 12.07.2020, subsequent to P.W.11's inspection. But the said contrary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statement was not considered by the trial court and consequent to

¶63

7/14

¶64

¶65

that, the trial court convicted the appellants/accused. Hence, the said conviction and sentence granted by the trial court is not legally sustainable one. Further, according to him, P.W.10-Justin Raja was examined by the prosecution in order to prove that the detonators which were seized from the appellants have been kept under his custody. However, the letter, marked by the prosecution shows that P.W.10 is the licensed vendor of detonators. Whereas in his evidence, P.W.10 deposed that he is one of the employees of Raja Explosives and one Selvam is the owner of the licensed godown, where the seized contrabands were kept in custody. However, the owner of the godown was not examined. Hence, he prayed for allowing of the appeal.

¶66

10.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the present case, the appellants/accused have no valid permission to reside in India and without valid permission, they resided in India. In the absence of any material, the trial court, in terms of Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, has rightly convicted the appellants/accused under the above provision. Further, the confession statement obtained from the absconding accused was utilized for recovery of contraband from the appellants as well as A-2, which was clearly corroborated by P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.4 is the Village Administrative Officer and he put his signature in the recovery mahazar and further the detonators recovered from the appellants/accused were defused by P.Ws.7 and 11. Hence, according to him, the minor contradictions will not fatal to the prosecution case. Further, he further submit that the trial court imposed a minimum punishment of two years for the offences punishable under Sections 14(a)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946, amended by the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004 and under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Hence, the same need not be interfered with. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶67

I have considered the above submissions.

¶68

12.The points arise for consideration in this appeal are:

¶69

“1)Whether the recovery of explosives was proved by the prosecution or not?

¶70

2)Whether the appellants have valid permission to stay in India or not?”

¶71

13.It is the admitted case of the prosecution that absconding accused namely A-1 Chandrakanthan Nagarasa was secured based on the reliable information on 20.06.2010 and based on the confession of A-1, A-2 and A-3 were secured by the Police on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same day at 10.30 a.m and their statements were recorded at 2.30

¶72

8/14

¶73

¶74

p.m and detonators were defused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly corroborated with each other. On the day of contraband was recovered from accused person, in which, P.W.4 clearly corroborated with other prosecution witnesses. It is true that there is some contradiction with Ex.P.9/report of Inspector and Ex.P.10-the letter sent by the Inspector of Police to a company viz., Raja Explosives, a licensed holder of Explosives, wherein, it has revealed that he is a license holder of detonators. However, in his evidence, P.W.10 has deposed that he is only an employee of Raja Explosives Company and it is admittedly a contradiction between Ex.P.10 and the evidence of P.W.10. However, this contradiction will not vitiate the prosecution case on the simple reason that P.W.10, has given evidence only for the purpose of explaining the fact the contraband, which was recovered from the accused persons were kept in their godown. P.W.11Additional Chief Controller of Explosives defused one detonator and P.W.7 had defused the remaining detonators. In view of the defusal of detonators, it is clearly proved that P.Ws.7, 10 and 11 were the Officers, who defused the detonators seized from the appellants/accused.

¶75

14.Time and again it has been consistently held by the various courts that minor contradictions/ inconsistencies/ discrepancies/ embellishments in the evidence of the witnesses will not in any way affect the substratum of the prosecution. Further, it has been held that over a passage of time, there are prone to be contradictions/ inconsistencies/ discrepancies/ embellishments in the evidence of witnesses and so long as it is not material, such contradictions should not be given much weight to throw away the prosecution version.

¶76

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of H.P. - Vs- Lekh Raj (2000 (1) SCC 247) , relating to discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, held as under :-

¶77

“7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured

¶78

9/14

¶79

¶80

by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala [(1974) 3 SCC 767 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 243] held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish v. State of M.P. [1981 Supp SCC 40 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 676] this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593] held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.”

¶81

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶82

In Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013 (12) SCC 187) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating its ratio laid in a catena of judgments on the question of contradiction/embellishments in the evidence of witnesses, held as under :

¶83

“31. This Court in several cases observed that minor inconsistent versions/discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the entire prosecution story, if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police [Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 42] this Court after scrutinising several earlier judgments relied upon the observations in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546] to the following effect: (Sampath Kumar case [Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 42]

¶84

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “21. … ‘42. Only such omissions which amount

¶85

10/14

¶86

¶87

to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person.’ (Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary case [(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546]”

¶88

32. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 375] this Court observed as follows:

¶89

“30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580] .)”

¶90

33.The embellishments in the statements of Narinder Banwait (PW 19) referred to above, in our view do not constitute such contradictions which destroy the core of the prosecution case as this Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2013) 5 SCC 722] has observed as under:

¶91

“43. … It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way

¶92

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶93

11/14

¶94

¶95

corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief.”

¶96

17.Yet again, in Rohtash Kumar – Vs - State of Haryana (2013 (14) SCC 434), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the long established proposition in the appreciation of evidence of witnesses with regard to the discrepancies in their evidence and in this regard, held as under :-

¶97

“24. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, unless irrelevant, details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus, the court must read the evidence of a witness as a whole, and https://hcservices.ecourts. consider the case in light of the entirety of the gov.in/hcservices/

¶98

12/14

¶99

¶100

circumstances, ignoring the minor discrepancies with respect to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution. The said discrepancies as mentioned above, should not be taken into consideration, as they cannot form grounds for rejecting the evidence on record as a whole. (See State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 : AIR 1985 SC 48], State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC 152] and Vijay v. State of M.P. [(2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639])” (Emphasis Supplied)

¶101

18.From the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that contradictions/discrepancies are prone to happen in the testimony of the witnesses due to passage of time between the occurrence proper and the date of their examination in court and in such circumstances, it is left to the wisdom of the court to analyze their evidence as a whole to cull out the truth or otherwise in their deposition and appreciate the same in proper perspective to arrive at a substantive opinion as to whether such contradiction/discrepancies affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Hence, I do not find any major contradiction in the case of the prosecution.

¶102

19.Further, in the present case, the appellants did not produce any material before the trial court that they have valid permission to stay in India. Under the Foreigners Act, 14(a), the appellants stayed in India is a clear violation of the provisions of 14(a-B) of the Act. The trial court rightly convicted the appellants on the above said provisions, hence, that finding cannot be interfered with. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli in S.C.No.185 of 2013 dated 30.10.2014.

¶103

20.In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed. However, considering the fact that, this Court is inclined to modify the sentences from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. Accordingly, this Court modifies the sentences from Rigorous Imprisonment to Simple Imprisonment.

¶104

21.At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants requested this Court to fix a time limit for surrendering of the accused before the trial Court to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

¶105

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶106

13/14

¶107

¶108

22.Considering the said submission, the appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶111

// True Copy //

¶112

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶113

¶114

¶115