Dismissed¶65

State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu v. Sait & Krishnakumar

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 392 r/w 397

Supreme Court1 Oct 20082008 INSC 1112 · [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1202008 INSC 1112

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interference with acquittal; test identification parade vitiated by pre-parade newspaper publication of accused's photographs and names; credibility of eyewitnesses PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-8; sole close-quarters witness's unexplained silence during investigation; first-time version in court discarded; possible-view standard for appellate interference; State appeal dismissed upholding Madras High Court acquittal in case under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 397 IPC arising from the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondent by the Madras High Court was left undisturbed ¶65

State, Represented by Inspector of Police… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2008)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondent by the Madras High Court was left undisturbed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent, where the High Court disbelieved PWs 1 to 3 (newspaper photographs/name prior to test identification parade) and PW-8 (evidence at variance and unreliable) +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

PWs 1 to 3 were disbelieved because they had occasion to see the photographs and read the name of the accused from the newspaper prior to the test identification parade

¶16

Ratio / Principle

PW-8's evidence was at variance with that of PWs 1 and 2 and lacked reliability; his version for the first time in Court was rightly discarded by the High Court, his conduct in claiming to have seen the accused with a blood-stained knife being unnatural

¶24

Key takeaways

The view taken by the High Court after analysing the evidence cannot be said to be a view which is not possible to be taken; therefore the appellate court is not inclined to interfere and the appeal is dismissedratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 392 r/w 397 — State appeal against acquittal by Division Bench of Madras High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 1991, judgment dated 16.11.2000) reversing conviction by the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore — Prosecution case rested on PWs 1 to 3 and PW-8 — PWs 1 and 2 conceded having seen photographs and read the accused's names in a newspaper prior to the test identification parade; PW-3's claim to have read only the name held not believable — PW-8's evidence at variance with PWs 1 and 2 and lacking reliability; his claim to have seen the accused with a blood-stained knife held unnatural, his failure to say so during investigation unexplained, and his version for the first time in Court rightly discarded — View of the High Court, after analysing the evidence, a possible view — Interference not called for — Appeal dismissed.

~ I

) ;, I

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 120

A STATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU

¶6

¶7

SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2002)

¶8

¶9

OCTOBER 1, 2008

¶10

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ]

¶11

¶12

Penal Code, 1860 - s, 302 and s. 392 rlw s. - Conviction c - Acquittal by High Court finding the evidence not .cogent and credible - Interference with - Held: Not called for since High Court had analysed the evidence - Three of the prosecution witnesses saw photographs and read name of accused from D^{the newspaper prior to test identification parade-}^{Evidence of} other prosecution witness Jacked reliability - Evidence - Test Identification Parade.

¶13

Respondent was tried for offences punishable u/s. 392 r/w s. 397 IPC. Trial court, relying on the evidence of E^{PWs 1to 3 and8,convicted and sentenced the respon-} dent u/s. 302 and u/s. 392 r/w s. 397 IPC. However, High Court found the evidence to be not cogent and credible and acquitted the respondent. Hence the appeal.

¶14

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

¶15

¶16

HELD: The High Court found that that PWs 1 to 3 had occasion to see the photographs and read the name of the accused from the newspaper prior to the test identification parade. So far as PW-8 is concerned, the High G^{Court foundthat hisevidencewasat variancewiththat} of PWs 1 and 2 and had also lacked reliability. He claimed to be a person who had seen the accused after some time of the incident with a blood stained knife. But his conduct was found to be unnatural. If he was the only person

}

;..

120

STATE, REPRETD. BY INSP. OF POLICE, TAMILNADU 121 v. SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR

¶22

:")

¶23

_,..

¶24

to have seen the accused from close quarters, it was not A explained why he did not say so during investigation. Such a version for the first time in Court has been rightly discarded by the High Court. The view taken by the High Court after analyzing the evidence ca!'lnot be said to be a view which is not possible to be taken. Thus, the appeal B is not interfered with. [Paras 4, 7 and 8] [122-C; 123-A; 122-D,E; 123-B]

¶25

¶26

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2002

¶27

¶28

From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 1991

¶29

S. Thananjayan forthsAppellant.

¶30

¶31

.,,

¶32

K.V. Viswanathan, 8. Ragunath, K.V. Venkataraman and K.V. Vijayakumar for the Respondents .

¶33

¶34

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶35

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for E the parties.

::.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. The Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore had found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under F Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). It is to be noted that four persons, including the respondent were tried fqr-2-offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. The present respondent, i.e. A-1 was tried for G offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and A-2 to A-4 were tried for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge found the respondent guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 as well as for offences punishable under Section 392 read with

¶40

¶41

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 14 S.C.R.

122

~ I

.,, ' ~ ~ l t

A Section 397 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the latter offence. The High Court found the evidence to be not cogent and credible and directed acquittal.

¶47

Prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PWs B 1 to 3 and PW-8. The trial court placed· reliance on the evidence of such witnesses and directed conviction, as recorded above.

¶48

The High Court found that it was an accepted position, as conceded by PWs 1 and 2 that they had seen the photoc^{graphs and readthenames of the accused in the newspaper} prior to the test identification parade. On that-3-ground, the High Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. So far as PW3 is concerned, the High Court found that his version to have only read the name of the accused in the newspaper and not to have seen the photographs,. was not believable. Accordingly, D PWs 1 to 3 were disbelieved. The residual question was the reliability of the evidence tendered by PW-8. Here again, the High Court found that his version lacked credence. He claimed to be a person who had seen the accused after some time of the incident with a blood stained knife. But his conduct was found E to be unnatural. If he was the only person to have seen the accused from close quarters, it was not explained why he did not say so during investigation. Such a version for the first time in Court has been rightly discarded by the High Court. Therefore, the High Court directed acquittal, as noted above.

¶49

¶50

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that even if there was some scope for doubting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, so far as PW-3 and PW-8 are concerned, a different yardstick had to be applied.

¶52

¶53

Learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the judgment of the High Court.

' ~ \

_,.

.,..

,.i;

We find that so far as PWs 1 to 3 are concerned, the High Court found that they had occasion to see the photographs and read the name of the accused from the newspaper prior to

¶60

¶61

STATE, REPRETD. BY INSP OF POLICE, TAMILNADU 123 v. SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR [Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶62

_,,

¶63

the test identification parade. So far as PW-8 is concerned, the High Court found that his evidence was at variance with that of PWs 1 and 2 and had also lacked reliability.

¶64