IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2006 Pandian .. Appellant/Sole Accused Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Eravancherry Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Cr.No.58 of 2002) .. Respondent/Complainant * * * Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in S.C.No.280 of 2002 dated 27.01.2003. * * * For Appellant : Mr.V.Muthukumarasamy For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango, Additional Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.) This appeal is preferred by a sole accused, Pandian, challenging the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 27.01.2003 made in S.C.No.280 of 2002 convicting him under Section 352 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and convicting him under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded during the course of trial is as follows: (i) The deceased, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the residents of Semmankudi village. P.W.1's father's maternal uncle is the deceased. P.W.5, the daughter of the deceased, was residing at Thanjavur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There was money transaction between P.W.5 and the accused family. At the instance of the deceased, the marriage of the accused was fixed with one Devi, daughter of P.W.5. At the time of betrothal, 1 1/2 sovereign of gold jewellery and 1/2 sovereign of gold ring were presented to the accused and an amount of Rs.28,000/- cash was also given to him. The marriage invitation under Ex.P.1 was also printed. But the daughter of P.W.5/Susila, before the marriage ran away with her maternal uncle and as such the said marriage was stopped. Thereafter, the deceased arranged the marriage of the accused with one Ilavarasi. The accused has not returned the cash of Rs.28,000/- and the jewellery, namely gold chain and the ring presented to him at the time of betrothal with the said Devi, daughter of P.W.5 and granddaughter of the deceased. The deceased demanded the accused to return the amount several times. But the accused has not returned. One year after the marriage of the accused with the said Ilavarasi, both the husband and wife separated and the accused was living with his brother-in-law one Chidambarm. The deceased also went to the house of the said Chidambaram and demanded the accused to return the amount. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the accused and the deceased. (ii) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 22.04.2002 at 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 went along with the deceased in a cycle to Manavalanallur village for purchasing coconut. At 6.30 p.m., they were returning to the village and the deceased was sitting as pillion-rider and while they were nearing a Metric school near Rani Mahal Kalyanamandapam, found that the accused was standing there with the cycle. As the deceased wanted to talk to the accused, P.W.1 stopped his cycle. At that time, the deceased again demanded the accused to return the amount which resulted in a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The deceased informed the accused that he won't leave him without getting the amount from him and left that place. While P.W.1 took the deceased in his cycle and proceeded about 10 to 15 feet, the accused came running with an aruval behind their back and stabbed the deceased on his neck. The accused also attempted to attack P.W.1 and P.W.1 ran towards a petrol bunk and he was hiding in that bunk. Again the accused went to the deceased and cut the deceased 4-5 times which fell on his chin, right forehand, right chest and right thigh. P.W.1 was witnessing the occurrence by standing 200 feet away from the scene. P.Ws.2, 4 and 45 others came to the scene. The accused left the scene of occurrence with the aruval in his cycle. The deceased was lying with injuries. P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 4 took the injured to the hospital. (iii) The Doctor, P.W.9 attached to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, examined the deceased on 22.04.2002 at 8.00 p.m. and found the deceased already dead. Ex.P.10 is the Accident Register. He sent the death intimation, Ex.P.16 to the police. (iv) P.W.12, the Head Constable, of Eravancherry Police Station received the intimation from the hospital at 9.00 p.m. on 22.04.2002 and went to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam at 11.00 p.m. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ received the written report from P.W.1 and on return to the police station on 23.04.2002 at 1.00 a.m., he registered the case in Crime No.58 of 2002 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.14 is the Express First Information Report and P.W.12 sent the same to the Court and to the higher police officials. (v) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, received the First Information Report on 23.04.2002 at 3.00 a.m. and took the investigation in this case at 4.00 a.m. He also received the death intimation from the hospital under Ex.P.16 at 5.00 a.m. and thereafter, went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.5 and the rough sketch, Ex.P.17 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. He held inquest on the dead body from 7.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. at the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. Ex.P.18 is the inquest report. He sent the body for post-mortem. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and also recovered the clothes of the deceased after post-mortem under Ex.P.20. (vi) The Doctor, P.W.10, attached to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, conducted post-mortem on 23.04.2002 at 12.00 noon and found the following injuries : (1)A cut injury back of neck extending from occipital region — shaped extending from right side ear to left side ear with skin scalp hanging over the wound exposing skull bone and vertebra about 22 cm. Length 10 cm breath and bone depth cutting vertebra exposing the injured spinal cord. (2)A cut injury right mandible region, a part of bone sliced with skin as a flap hanging from injury 10 cm X 5 xm X 7 cm (3)A cut injury right elbow 'V' shaped 7.5 X 7.5 cm length 3 cm breath and 3 cm depth flap of skin hanging over wound exposing muscles. (4)A cut injury right side buttock 10 cm X 3 X 7.5 cm (5)A punctured wound in right side nose. Dissection of injury No.1 A cut injury back of neck & occipital region shaped extending from right side ear to left side ear with flap of skin is hanging extending skin and scalp tissue exposing skull an vertebra bone. Transverse fracture of 3rd cervical vertebra going deeply exposing spinal cord which dissected transversely. Internal Examination : Thorax : Heart 150 gms. Chambers empty. Lungs Right 450 gms c/s pale. Left 400 gms c/s pale. Abdomen : Stomach contain 200 gm of rice particle. Intestine empty. Liver 1200 gm pale spleen 150 gm pale. Kidney 150 gm each pale. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hyoid Bone intact. Urinary Bladder : Empty. Pelvis No fracture. Head & Spine fracture of 3rd cervical vertebra transversely place exposing injury spinal cord. Brain : 1400 gm intact Membrane." Ex.P.11 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. The Doctor, P.W.10, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury to vital organ spinal cord due to vertebra fracture. (vii) P.W.16 took up further investigation on 27.04.2002. He perused the documents and statements recorded from the witnesses by P.W.15. On 01.05.2002 at 5.30 p.m, he arrested the accused at Kathiramangalam village. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused under Ex.P.7, he recovered the aruval, M.O.3, cycle, M.O.2 in the presence of P.W.8 and another under the mahazars, Exs.P.8 and 9. He sent the material objects for chemical examination through the Court and received the Serologists report, Ex.P.21. He also recovered the wedding invitation from the house of P.W.1. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3, 9 and 10 and recorded their statements. (viii) P.W.17 took up further investigation and he examined some more witnesses and recorded their statements. After verifying the documents and the statements recorded from the witnesses by P.Ws.15 and 16 and after completing the investigation, P.W.17 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 22.08.2002 for the offence under Sections 302 and 352 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 17, filed Exs.P.1 to P.22 and marked M.Os.1 to 12. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has come forward with the version of total denial. He has not chosen to examine any witness on his side. 5. Mr.K.P.Muthukumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not come forward with clear and cogent version. It is contended that the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 4, have turned hostile and the prosecution is left with the sole testimony of P.W.1. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent witness. The learned counsel would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 suffers from infirmities and his evidence is contrary to the materials available on record. The learned counsel would submit that it is not safe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1. It is submitted that the medical evidence is contrary to the version of P.W.1. The learned counsel would also contend that the prosecution has not proved the recovery of the weapon, M.O.3, aruval by adducing satisfactory evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that there are contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and his report, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P.1 in respect of any material recovery. 6. Per contra, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has come forward with clear and consistent evidence. It is submitted that the evidence of the eye-witness, P.W.1, is quite clear and cogent and there is no infirmity in his evidence. It is contended that though the other witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 4, have turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 to the extent of presence of P.W.1 at the scene. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.10, who has conducted post-mortem as he has found the corresponding injuries as per the overt acts alleged against the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the prosecution has also proved the recovery of M.O.3, aruval in pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of the accused, Ex.P.7 as the evidence of the investigating officer, P.W.16, is corroborated by P.W.8, who is an independent witness. 7. We have give our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and scrutinized the entire materials available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. 8. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. The fact remains that P.Ws.2 to 4 have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, we are left with the sole and solitary testimony of P.W.1 in respect of the occurrence proper. It is well settled that the evidence of a solitary witness can be very well relied upon provided such evidence is clear, consistent and inspires the confidence of the Court. 9. At the outset, we are constrained to state that we are not able to find any infirmity or inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and his evidence is quite clear, consistent and natural. It is pertinent to be noted that there is no contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and his earlier report, Ex.P.1 in respect of the material particulars regarding the motive as well as the overt acts alleged against the accused. The occurrence took place, according to the prosecution, at 6.30 p.m. and the deceased was taken by P.W.1 and others to the hospital at 8.00 p.m. itself. Thereafter, on intimation from the hospital, P.W.12, Head Constable, went to the hospital at 11.00 p.m. and received the report from P.W.1. P.W.12 on return to the police station registered the case between 22/23.04.2003 at 1.00 a.m. Therefore, there is no delay in giving report to the police. 10. The evidence of P.W.1 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 to the extent about the presence of P.W.1 at the scene and thereafter informing them about the accused cutting the deceased. This earliest version of P.W.1 to P.Ws.2 and 4 strengthens the prosecution case and also satisfies the test of credibility of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ version of P.W.1. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto and any portion either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence could be very well placed reliance. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sat Paul V. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1976 SC 294 has held that, "Even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto." 12. In yet another decision in Gurpreet Singh V. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2002 SC 3217 that, "Incidentally, it is now well-settled that in the event of a portion of evidence not being consistent with the statements given under 161 and the witness stands declared hostile that does not, however, mean and imply total rejection of the evidence. The portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted but the same shall be subjected to close scrutiny." 13. The above well settled principle of law regarding the hostile witness is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also P.Ws.2 and 4, though turned hostile, have categorically stated about the information furnished by P.W.1 at the earliest point of time, i.e., immediately after the occurrence to the effect that the accused is responsible for causing the injuries resulting in the death of the deceased. It is pertinent to be noted that the version of P.W.1 is also corroborated by the medical evidence as the Doctor, P.W.10, who has conducted post-mortem, has found corresponding injuries in respect of the overt acts alleged against the accused. 14. The prosecution also proved the recovery of the weapon, M.O.3, aruval, at the instance of the accused by adducing acceptable evidence. The version of P.W.16 in respect of the arrest and recovery of M.O.3, weapon/aruval, from the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8. We are unable to see any infirmity in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence of P.W.8. It is pertinent to be noted that the weapon M.O.3 is also contained human blood as per the Serologists Report, Ex.P.21, though the group was not found as the result of blood grouping test is inconclusive. 15. The alternative contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the accused caused injuries to the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation is also unacceptable. It is seen that admittedly the deceased arranged the marriage of the accused with P.W.5's daughter one Devi, who is none else than his granddaughter. As that marriage was no materialised as the bride, the said Devi, ran away with her maternal uncle before the date of marriage, the deceased only made arrangements for the marriage of the accused with one Ilavarasi. There is nothing wrong for the deceased demanding the accused to return the cash amount of Rs.28,000/- and jewellery, namely, 1 1/2 sovereign gold chain and 1/2 sovereign ring which were presented to the accused at the time of betrothal with the granddaughter of the deceased and the daughter of P.W.5. It is seen that while the deceased demanded the accused to return the amount, the accused quarreled with the deceased and thereafter, the deceased left from that place with P.W.1 by sitting in his cycle as a pillion-rider. Thereafter, the accused chased the deceased and cut on his neck with the aruval. The accused also attempted to cut P.W.1 and P.W.1 ran away towards a petrol bunk. Again, the accused came back to the deceased and repeatedly cut the deceased causing five injuries on him. In view of this brutal act of the accused even after the deceased left from the scene along with P.W.1 in his cycle, it cannot be stated that the accused cut the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation and as such we have no hesitation to reject such contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the accused is not entitled to invoke Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is liable to the dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gg To 1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. 2. - do - thro" the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Collector, Nagapattinam District. 4. The Director General of Police, Chennai. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 6. The Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Eravancherry Police Station, Nagapattinam District. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC To Mr.V.Muthukumarasamy, Advocate SR NO.37263 Crl.A.No.3 of 2006 RB(CO) SRA(05/08/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/