Appeals against conviction for political murder of a BJP leader hacked to death before his wife. Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings: consistent testimony of three eyewitnesses corroborated by dying declaration, medical evidence, timely FIR; interested/chance witness objections and non-holding of identification parade rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 916
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2006)
B
SEPTEMBER 01, 2010
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]
H
Many political murders and other crimes took place in 'K' district of Kera la. 'MV', an activist of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was murdered. Thereafter, 'PC'leader of BJP, received death threats, thinking to be the 916
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 917 KERA LA
brain behind the murder of 'MV'. 'PC' was then provided police security. On the fateful day, accused persons-A1 to AS, armed with deadly weapons, hacked 'PC' to death in broad day light, in front of his wife-PW 1. The father of the deceased-CW1 also witnessed the incident. AccusedA2 absconded. The Court of Session convicted the appellants-accused persons A1, A3 to AS for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. They were sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 IPC. For offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods, varying from two months to three years. The High Court upheld the order of conviction but converted death sentence to .' imprisonment for life. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals.
A
B
c
o
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:. 1.1 Given the seriousness of the allegations made as also the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court, the High Court correctly considered the entire evidence with great care and caution. The High Court took cautionary approach because this was one of the many political murders and crimes which had been committed in 'K' district during the relevant time. The deceased was a BJP leader and the accused were workers of the Marxist Party. It came in evidence before the trial court that the deceased was a candidate of the BJP in the General Election for the 'P' Assembly Constituency. Even though he got only 10,000 votes, he was threatned that he would be killd. Consequently, the police aid post was established about 1 SO meters near the house of 'PC'. The added reason for danger to the life of the deceased was that he was suspected to be a mastermind behind the murder of a Marxist Party activist called 'MV'. Demands were made by the Marxist Party, as
E
F
G
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A well as the public in general, for the deceased to be arrayed as an accused in the said murder. The High Court also noticed that the danger to the life of the deceased became stronger when the LDF Government came to power. The house of the deceased was situated in a B disturbed area. [Para 11] (930-A-E]
1.2 The High Court examined the entire evidence and concurred with the conclusions reached by the trial court. There is no reason to differ with the conclusions which C seem to flow naturally from the evidence on record. [Para 12] (930-F-G]
1.3 The wife was an eye-witness to the murderous assault, which resulted in the death of her husband. The wife-PW1 categorically stated that the accused persons D attacked her husband at the stated time and place; and that two of the accused persons hacked her husband with a billhook. However, she was not aware of the names of the accused persons .at that time. The names were given to her by CW1, three days after the incident. During E her deposition in court, she clearly stated that she-could identify the assailants. She actually identified them in the court. When questioned in court, she categorically stated that her husband tried to turn the motorcycle round on the road, but it fell down; that she ran to the house . F through the very same route where her husband and the assailants also followed; and that the persons who injured her husband, were_ the persons she identified in the court. (Para13 and 14] (930-H; 931-G-H; 932-A-B]
1.4 The High Court rightly concluded that the G evidence of PW1 was consistent with the evidence given by PW2 and PW3. PW2 stated that he saw the deceased being hacked with\ a billhook with a curved beak. He specifically named the accused 'S'. Upon being brutally wounded, the deceased fell down. The witness also
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 919 KERALA
stated that, thereafter, all the five accused attacked the A deceased with their respective weapons. He recognized four of the persons present in the court. He also stated that he knew the names of each of them and could point out each person by name; that the name of the absconding assailant is 'P'; and that A3 was armed with an axe and the others with billhook with pointed beak/ curved beak. He identified the weapons of offence. The evidence of PW2 was reiterated by PW3. The High Court also noticed that PW4-neighbour also reached the scene of the assault. He stated that the deceased in reply to a question of the policemen stated while groaning with pain, that 'S and others' were the assailants. He confirmed that the deceased was facing assassination threats after the murder of 'MV' at place 'C'. He deposed that he had seen in the newspaper that Marxist people had gone on Satyagraha in their office demanding inclusion,of the deceased as an accused in the 'MV' murder case. The High Court also noticed the evidence of PW7, who was posted in the police picket near the ho'use of the deceased. He stated that they had gone to the scene of the crime when they were informed by some workmen that somebody had been stabbed. When they I reached the place of incident, they saw the deceased was lying covered with blood I in the lap of his father CW1. PW 7 stated that on being asked the names of the assailants, the victim gave the name which he was unable to understand. However, he stated that the victim was conscious at that time. With the consistent eyewitness account of three witnesses together with the evidence of the witnesses for the period immediately after the incident, it would be well-nigh impossible to disturb the concurrent conclusions reached by the trial court and the High Court. [Paras: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20] [932-C; H-933-A-C, H; 934-A, C-E; 935-A-D]
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A 1.5 The father of the deceased, author of the first information statement passed away before the trial. In the first information statement which was converted into a FIR, he categorically stated that on hearing the screams of the daughter-in-law, he ran back towards the place B where he had met his son and daughter-in-law. He saw that the motorcycle had been abandoned in the road. His son was running towards the house and was being chased by five to eight persons. They were hacking his son with weapons like sword. When he yelled for help, C the accused 'S' hacked forcefully on the back of the deceased with a sword like weapon in his hand and ran away. The High Court correctly observed that the statement could not be considered as a substantive piece of evidence. [Para 21] [935-E-G; 936-A-B]
D 1.6 The High Court accepted that the dying declaration might not be sufficient for conviction of the accused. However, it could be considered for corroboration of the evidence of other witnesses. PW2 and PW3 categorically stated that the deceased even E though badly injured had stated that the assailants were 'S' and others. The High Court was also cautious to ensure that the injured was in a fit state to mal<e the dying declaration. Therefore, it examined the evidence of the doctor who clearly stated that even after being brutally F injured, the deceased could have talked for another 20 minutes. PW10, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem stated that the cause of death was due to bleeding and irreversible shock neural and vascular. He also stated that Injury Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 21 G could be caused by M01 or a weapon similar to M01. Injury No. 12 could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like an axe. The doctor stated that after sustaining injury No.12 ,the victim must have received neural shock for sometime and, thereafter, he would have been able to talk
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 921 KERA LA
and drink, approximately for another 20 minutes. The doctor also opined after looking at the injuries that the same were caused-by persons trained in killing. [Paras 22, 24 and 25] [936-C-D; 939-C-E]
1.7 The High Court rightly observed that there was no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and in sending the copy of the same to the Magistrate. In any event, no prejudice was caused to the accused persons. [Para 26] [940-C-D]
1.8 The evidence given by the wife of the deceased C was unimpeachable. It could not be discarded, on the basis that she was an interested witness. If such a wide proposition was to be accepted the evidence of all the witnesses who were relatives of a victim of a violent crime would be _rendered unacceptable. Merely because PW1 happens to be the wife of the deceased would not justify her being branded as an interested witness. The evidence of the wife is followed by the consistent evidence given by PW2 and PW3 which was further corroborated by the dying declaration made by the injured within minutes of being assaulted. In such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses ought to be disbelieved. [Para 27] [940-E-G]
1.9 The evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 could not be brushed aside on the ground that they were chance as well as partisan witnesses. The deceased was UC agent. PW2 wanted to take a loan from UC for construction of his house. Therefore, he went to meet the deceased at his house. He was accompanied by his friend PW3. Both of them left the house of the deceased in the circumstances narrated and clearly witnessed the second assault on the deceased. Merely because PW2 and PW3 were sympathizers of BJP, their evidence could not be brushed aside. At best, their evidence has to be
A
8
D
E
F
G
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R..
B State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752; Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of UP. (2004) 11 SCC 410 - relied on.
1.10 No test identification parade was held. The wife C and the other eye-witnesses, PW 2 and 3, were asked to identify the accused for the first time in the court, some eight and a half years after the incident. The widow had witnessed the brutal murder of her husband, right in front of her eyes in broad day light. In such circumstances, it D would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to forget the faces of the assailants. They would be imprinted on her psyche for ever. She had come face to face with the assailants. She would have no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellants. In court, she categorically E deposed and identified each of the assailants. She was absolutely truthful and straight forward. A1 lives very near to the house of the deceased. In such circumstances, she could have easily stated that she had known A1 earlier. There are no embellishments seen in her evidence F throughout. The High Court rightly rejected that nonholding of the test identification parade caused any prejudice to the accused. The evidence of PW1 is fully supported/corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3 on the point of second assault. They identified all the G accused in court. Their identification was further strengthened by the fact that all the accused were known to the two witnesses earlier. Therefore, they were identified by name in court. [Para 34) [943-G-H; 944-A-D]
Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2000)
H
MYLADIMMAl SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 923 KERALA
1 sec 358 - relied on.
A
1.11 Upon a due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High Court does not call for any i_nterference. [Para 35]
| CaseLawReference: | B | |
|---|---|---|
| (1981) 2sec_152_ Relied on. |
Para29 | |
| (2004)11sec410 Relied on. |
Para30 | |
| (2000) 1sec358 Relied on. |
Para33 | c |
| CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cri No.839of2006. |
minal Appeal |
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.11.2005 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 2005. D
WITH
Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2006.
C.K. Sasi for the Appellants. E
R. Sathish, S. Geetha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. These appeals have F been filed against the common judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal Nos. 214 and 159 of 2005 filed by the accused/appellant no.1 and accus~d/ appellant no.3 to accused /appellant no.5 respectively whereby the High Court was pleased to confirm the conviction of the G accused/appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 149 IPC, but partly allowed their appeals to the extent that the sentence of death imposed upon by the Sessions Court _was converted to imprisonment for life.
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
F
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 925 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
to as A3), Kaithayullaparambath Preman (hereinafter referred A to as A4) and Kunhiparambath Purushothaman @ Purushu (hereinafter referred to as A5). They were all armed with deadly weapons. Though the deceased attempted to avoid them. he was unable to do so, as the engine of the motor cycle went dead. The wife jumped off the motorcycle just before it fell. B She ran away. Then from a distance she saw that A 1 assaulted the deceased with a billhook which injured his left hand. The deceased started running towards his house hotly chased by the accused armed with deadly weapons. The wife ran to the place where they had met CW1 . But hearing her screams, CW1 c was already coming towards the trouble spot. On meeting CW1, she informed him about the incident. She then ran to the house of her husband thinking that the deceased must have reached home. Finding that her husband was not in the house, she again ran back, with the sister of the deceased, to the place of ass.ault. 0 She found the deceased lying with his head on the lap of_his father. According to. the wife, the incident occurred at about . 4:45 p.m. At that time, she did not know the names of the accused. She was told the names by CW1 after three days.·
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 10 S.C.R.
A accused pleaded not guilty they were duly put on trial.
C 7. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, A1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2005 and A3 to A5 filed Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2005 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court vide order dated 16.11.2005 confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with 149 I PC D but the sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A 1 filed Crl. Appeal No. 840 of 2006 and A3 to A5 filed Crl. Appeal No. 839 of 2006 before this Court.
E 8. We have heard Mr. Surinder Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R. Satish on behalf of the respondent State.
G
(i) Ext P1, the First information Statement was given by the father of the deceased (CW1). who died one year before trial. The FIS has been wrongly used as a substantial piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. In the First Information Statement, he had stated thafthe incident occurred while his son was returning from the Railway Station together with his
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 927 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.
A
ought to have scrutinized the evidence meticulously.
B
D
E
F
G
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 929 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
| (i) | The trial court and the High Court have convicted the accusedonthe basisofthe eye-witness accountofthree witnesses. PW1is the wifeofthe deceased. She had noreasontofalsely implicate anyone. |
A |
|---|---|---|
| (ii) | The evidence givenbythe wife is consistent with the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who witnessedthesecondphaseofthe murderous assault. |
B |
| (iii) | The presenceofPW2 andPW3cannot be doubtedonthe ground that they are chance witnesse!}orthattheyarepartisan witnesses. |
c |
| (iv) . | The nature of injuries caused are consistent with the weapons used, by the assailants. |
D |
| (v) | Medicalevidenceconfirmstheocular evidence. |
|
| (vi) | The dying declaration also addsfurther corroboration to the eye-witness account given by PW1, PW2 and PW3. |
E |
| (vii) · |
Non holding of the test identification parade would not weaken the eye-witness account of PW1, PW2 and PW3. All·ofthem have identified the accusedincourt. |
F |
| (viii) | Thereisnodelayinrecording theFIRThere is also no delayinsending a copyofthe FIR to the Judicial Magistrate,1stClass. |
G |
| (ix) | Both the courtshavegivenconcurrent findings, therefore,nocase is made out for interference by this Court. · |
H |
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Given the seriousness of the allegations made as also the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court, the High Court, in our opjnion, correctly considered the entire evidence with great care and---caution. The other reason which B impelled the High Court to take this,cautionary approach was that this was one of the many politi'Cal murders and crimes which had been committed in Kannur District during the relevant time. It was noticed that the deceased was a BJP leader and the accused were workers of the Marxist Party. It had come in c evidence before the trial court that the deceased had been a candidate of the BJP in the General Election for the Peringalam Assembly Constituency. Even though he had got only 10,000 votes, he had been threatened that he would be killed. Consequently, the police aid post had been established about D 150 meters near his house. The added reason for danger to the life of the deceased was that he was suspected to be a mastermind behind the murder of a Marxist Party activist called Mamman Vasu. Demands had been made by the Marxist Party, as well as the public in general, for the deceased to be arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid murder. The High Court E also noticed that the danger to the life of the deceased became stronger when the LDF Government came to power. To make it even worst, the house of the deceased was situated in a disturbed area.
F 12. The High Court thereafter examined the entire evidence threadbare and concurred with the conclusions reached by the trial court. We see no reason to doubt, let alone differ with, the conclusions which seem to flow naturally from the evidence on record. Although the conviction of the accused G persons was confirmed, the High Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 931 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
appeared in the Court as PW1. In her evidence, she has clearly A stated that on 25.5.1996 she and her husband had gone to the local railway station to see off her brother on the train to Madras. They had set off from the house between 2.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. on her husband's motorcycle. They left the railway station after 3.45 p.m. On the way back home, they bought some B apples from fruit stall and put them in a box attached to the motor bike. When they reached near the house they met CW1 father of the deceased. On being asked by her husband, CW1 told them that he was going to the Ration Shop to buy some rice. Whilst they were on their way home, they saw five persons C standing in the middle of the road at the curve. On being. obstructed, her husband tried to go round them. Tragically, however, the engine of the motorcycle somehow got switched off. She immediately jumped off the motorcycle, which in any event fell down. She then saw one of the accused persons hack her husband with a billhook. Her husband tried to block the blow/ D by raising his left arm which in the process got injured. She · started screaming. While running away from the scene, she saw her husband also running towards the house, hotly pursued by the five assailants, waving their deadly weapons. She ran to locate CW1, who was already rushing towards the trouble E spot, having heard her shrieks. She then witnessed the second assailant Purushu (AS) hack her husband with the billhook. She ran to the house of the deceaseu taking the canal road, thinking that he would have reached home by then. However, finding that her husband had not reached, she again rushed back to the F scene of the incident, along with the sister of the deceased. It was at that time she saw her husband lying on the ground with his head on the lap of his father CW1. He had injuries all over his body and he was drenched in blood.
E
G
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 10 S.C.R.
A deposition in court, she clearly stated that she can identify the assailants. She actually identified them in court. When questioned in court, she categorically stated that her husband tried to turn the motorcycle round on the road, but it fell down. She also stated that she ran to the house through the very same B route where her husband and the assailants had also followed. She very clearly stated in court that the persons, that injured her husband, were the persons she identified in Court.
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 933 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
brutally wounded, the deceased fell down. The witness also stated that thereafter all the five accused attacked the deceased with their respective weapons. He recognized four of the persons present in court. He also stated that he knew the names of each of them and he can point out each person by name. The witness then actually pointed out the accused by name. This witness further goes on to state that the name of the absconding assailant is 'Pavithran'. He stated that A3 was armed with an axe and the others with billhook with poinfed beak/curved beak. He identified the weapons of offence. According to this witness, the body of the deceased was badly cut up. By the time, the father of the victim, CW1 reached the spot, the five assailants had fled away. They carried their weapons with them. It was only after that an explosion was heard from the Southern side of the place of incident. CW1 took the head of the victim in his lap who was continuously asking for water. By that time, two police men came running to the spot. One of them wiped out the blood from the face of the victim. He asked the victim 'who did this to you'? The victim answered 'Suku and others'. At the same time, a neighbouring woman gave some water to the police men who then dripped the same into the victim's mouth. The neighbour also gave them some more clothes which were used for dressing the wounds of the victim. This witness, thereafter, helped the police and other persons to put the victim into the jeep who was then taken to the hospital. The witness categorically stated that the accused were known to him earlier as they were regular visitors at the arrack shop where he worked. He stated that A1 was a Mason, A2 Pavithran who is absconding was a carpenter, A3 was a .bus cleaner, A4 was a coconut tree climber, A5 was a concrete worker. The witness even stated that he had given the names to the police at the time when the statement was recorded. Subsequently, when the statement was again recorded, he again gave the names. This witness was cross-examined at length but his evidence could not be shaken.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
934
c
F
"I saw in the news paper, a report of hunger strike by Marxist party people in Checkli asking to make Chandrettan as an accused in Mamman Murder Case. Like wise I am told that there was speech in public meeting of CPl(M) that Chandrettan would be killed."
G
In his cross-examination, he stated that he is a BJP candidate and deceased was Kannur District Secretary of BJP. He also stated that he had told the doctor that he had seen the deceased lying on the road with injuries all over his body.
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 935 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
"Chandran is the District Secretary of BJP. Sugu and others are communists. Politically they are inimical to Chandran. They hacked Chandran to death out of this political animosity. Necessary action may be taken in this
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A respect. The place of occurrence is within the limits of the Panoor Police station."
8
The High Court, in our opinion, correctly observed that the statement could not be considered as a substantive piece of evidence.
G a piece of underlying bone, 7 c.m.
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 937 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
| through the middle of the pinna into two, 7 c.m. incised wound gracing occiput bone and mastoid. |
A | |
|---|---|---|
| 6. | 13 c.m. x 6 c.m. transverse incised woundonthe neck at the level of the (L) ear lobe gracingonthe mastoid. |
B |
| 7. | On the back, (L) side below neck, gaping 7 c.m. x 5 c.m.transversewoundand its tailextends superficially, 8c,.m.more laterally and downward(in L Shape). |
c |
| 8. | A linear incised wound 4 c.m. x 3 cm. just below this wound. |
|
| 9. | 4.c.m. x 3 c.m. incised transverse wound 12 c.m. below theneck:. |
D |
| 10. | 2.5 c.m. longincisedwoundon skinover(L) shoulder olade. |
|
| 11. | Four linear slashed incised woundsonthe backof head with marksonthe skull from above downwards (from R to L 10 cm x 3 cm, 8 cm x 2.5 cm, 4.5 cm x 2.5 cm and 7 cm x 6 cm. |
E |
| 12. | 11c.m. long x 8 c.m. deep transverse incised cut onthe back of neck at the level of the 5th cervical spine and cutting it and the spinal cord. |
F |
| 13. | 12 c.m. long transversely oblique incised wound cutting open the posterolateral left thigh and knee joint 7 c.m. deep exposing the femoral condyle and cuttingit. |
G |
| 14. | 15 c.m. oblique gaping incised wound on (L) lateral thigh middle, cutting partofthe muscles and 4 c.m. deep. |
|
| 15. | 9 c.m. linear cut exposing the (L) shoulder 5 c.m. | H |
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2010] 10 S.C.R.
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 939 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
| 26. | Another 4 cutson(L)occiput obliquely and over (L) mastoid. |
A |
|---|---|---|
| 27. | Abdomencontainspartiallydigestedfood materials. |
|
| 28. | Internal viscera pale, intact, including brain matter, liver, lungs, stomach, spleen, viscera and heart." |
8 |
C
D
E
F
G
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A Court notices the submission on behalf of the accused that the seal of the court on the FIR was affixed on 29.5.1996. It was, however, obseryed that the genuineness of the signature of the Magistrate on 26.5.1996 was not questioned by the accused at any time. This apart, it was noticed that the investigating B officer was not questioned regarding-the authenticity of the signature of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. It was also noticed that 28th was a holiday, being Muharam, therefore, the seal being affixed on 29.5.1996 would not be extraordinary. The High Court also found that in case the recording of the FIR was c actually delayed, as suggested by the accused, it would not be necessary to name only one accused person therein. If the FIR was fabricated then all the accused could have been incorporated. In our opinion, it was rightly observed by the High Court that there was no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and in sending the copy of the same to the Magistrate. In any 0 event, no prejudice bas been caused to the accused persons.
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 941 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
"True, it is she is the wife of the deceased, but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only C possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested' in the instant case PW1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
"Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passerby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is
8
E
F
G
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
A
B
borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter of explaining their presence."
G
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 943 KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
Justice S.S. Majmudar speaking for the Court observed as A . follow~:
" ...... there is direct eyewitness account deposed to by the witness Dhirubhai Mohanbhai (brother of the deceased), witness Dhirubhai Premjibhai, PW 5, the tenant residing 8 in the locality and Dilipbhai, the younger brother of the deceased. These witnesses have clearly deposed that they knew the accused. In fact, Dilipbhai was the person who was involved in the incident of the previous day wherein Accused 1 and his accomplices had a quarrel with him and C his supporters. That part of the evidence of these eyewitnesses had remained well sustained on record. So far as witness Niruben was concerned, she is the wife of the deceased Ramanbhai Mohanbhai. The accused mounted an assa.ult on her husband in her bedroom and even though she might not be knowing the accused D earlier, the faces of the accused mounting such an assault and which caused fatal injuries to her husband can easily be treated to have been imprinted in hermind and when she could identify these accused in the Court even in the absence of an identification parade, it could E not be said that her deposition was unnatural .or she was trying to falsely rope in the present accused by shielding the real assaulters of her husband." (Emphasis supplied)
In our opinion these observations would be fully applicable to the situation in this case.
F
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
circumstances of this case. we are of the considered opinion
E that the judgment of the High Court does not call for any ihterference. The appeals are dismissed.
N.J.
Appeals dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence of the wife (interested witness), PW2 and PW3 (chance/partisan witnesses) could sustain conviction for murder.
Whether absence of test identification parade and alleged delay in FIR caused prejudice to the accused.
Whether concurrent convictions under ss. 143/147/148/341/302 IPC required interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and AnotherRelied on¶29
(1981) 2 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of UPRelied on¶30
(2004) 11 SCC 410 · Who else cites this
Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel Vs. State of GujaratApplied¶33
(2000) 1 SCC 358 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Myladimmal Surendran & Ors.
State of Kerala
B. Sudershan Reddy
Surinder Singh Nijjar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
