IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 17.09.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN Crl. A. No.358 of 2010 Varadaraj ... Appellant(Accused) ..Vs.. The State by Inspector of Police, Karumalikudal Police Station, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ... Respondent(Complainant) Appeal filed u/s.374(2) against the judgment dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Salem in S.C. No.338 of 2004. For Appellant : Mr. A. Sundaravadhanan For Respondent : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Salem in S.C. No.338 of 2004, whereby the accused/appellant stood charged and tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and acquitted the accused/appellant in respect of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case was registered against this appellant/accused and other two accused viz. Padmanabhan @ Boopathy and Thangadurai and the case was split up in respect of this appellant/first accused and that trial was conducted in S.C. No.338 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Salem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:- (i) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Duraisamy. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, P.W.1 and also P.W.5, who is the sister of the deceased and also belong to the same place and they are related to each other. Prior to the occurrence in the past, P.W.6 the sister of the deceased was informed that the accused was stealing the electrical energy and immediately this was informed to the relations and they had planned to report the matter to the Electricity Board. (ii) On the date of occurrence that was on 26.12.2001 in the evening hours of 7 O' clock, the deceased Duraisamy along with P.W.1 proceeded to nearby tea stall. At that time, the accused/appellant along with other two accused viz. Padmanabhan @ Boopathy and Thangadurai waylaid them. When accused 2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased, it was first accused/appellant stabbed the deceased on his left plank. When P.W.1 intervened, he was also stabbed by the accused/appellant immediately. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.2,3,4,5 and 6. When the crowd gathered, they ran away from the place of occurrence. When the deceased Duraisamy went to the Hospital, on the way he died. P.W.1 was taken to Mettur Government Hospital where he was given treatment by one Dr. Nirmala and Ex.D1 is the wound Certificate. (iii) On intimation, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police went to the Government Hospital, Mettur and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 9.15 p.m. and thereafter registered a case in Crime No.691 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code at about 10 p.m. The First Information Report Ex.P2 was despatched to the Court. (iv) On receipt of copy of First Information Report, P.W.13 Inspector of Police took up investigation and proceeded to the spot and made an inspection and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P3 and also rough sketch Ex.P9. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P10. Following the same, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem and P.W.12 Doctor has given opinion in the post-mortem Certificate Ex.P8 that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries sustained by him. (v) Pending investigation, the accused/appellant was arrested on 27.12.2001. Thereafter, he came forward to give confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of P.W.11 Village Administrative Officer and also another witness. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P5. Consequent upon the confession statement, the accused/appellant produced M.O.3 knife and also M.O.4 blood stained shirt and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P6 and the accused/appellant was sent for judicial remand. Thereafter, all the material objects, which were recovered from the place of occurrence and the accused were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Department. Ex.P11 to 13 are the chemical analysis reports and the Serological report respectively. On completion of investigation, the final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 13 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 4. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused/appellant, but one document was marked. 5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinizing the materials available on record, found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant. 6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 p.m. on 26.12.2001. P.W.1 is not only shown as eye witness but also injured witness. It was he who gave Ex.P1 report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police. But, P.W.1 has turned hostile. Apart from that, according to the prosecution, P.W.1 has actually been admitted and given treatment by one Dr.Nirmala, who has not been examined as witness and not even a medical opinion or the wound Certificate or the accident register copy was produced by the prosecution. On the contrary, Ex.D1 copy of Accident Register was marked through the witness during cross examination, from which, it is quite clear that it is contrary to the prosecution case. 7. Learned counsel added further that the other witnesses except P.W.2, all turned hostile. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.2 is concerned, his evidence should not be relied on. According to P.Ws.1 and 4, though treated hostile, they have categorically stated that at the time of occurrence, P.W.2 was in his house and after the occurrence was over, he was informed about the occurrence and thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence and thus, it was a developed version given by the prosecution in order to strengthen the prosecution case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Learned counsel added further that from the evidence of P.W.2, it is quite clear that he could not have seen the occurrence, which is not only the discrepancy of prosecution case, but also self inconsistent. The alleged confession statement and recovery of M.O.3 knife and M.O.4 shirt are all cooked up documents in order to suit the prosecution case. 9. Learned counsel added further that though all the material objects are subjected to chemical analysis, the reports would clearly indicate the fact that the blood group could not be fixed since it disintegrated. Under the circumstances, the prosecution had no evidence to offer and hence the accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal. 10. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 11. It is not in controversy that one Duraisamy, son of P.W.1, following the incident that had taken place at 7.30 p.m. on 26.12.2001, met his end on his way to the Hospital. On the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered by P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to which the case was taken up by P.W13 Inspector of Police, who conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem. P.W12 Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, has issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P8. The evidence of P.W.12 Doctor, who was examined as a witness before the Court and the contents of Ex.P8 post-mortem Certificate would prove the fact that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries sustained by him. The said fact was never disputed by the accused at any stage before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court was perfectly correct in recording so. 12. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased and caused the death, the prosecution examined P.W.1 as an injured eye witness and also P.Ws.2 to 4 as eye witnesses. It is true, P.W.1 was treated as hostile before the Trial Court. It is also true that on the strength of Ex.P1 complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered by P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police. 13. It is not in controversy that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the incident has taken place at about 7.30 p.m. In so far as the evidence of P.W.1 was concerned, it could be accepted to the extent of putting the criminal law in motion. In so far as the occurrence is concerned, though the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 to 4 as eye witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4 have turned hostile. The prosecution has left with the evidence of P.W.2 only. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. The Indian Criminal Jurisprudence does not go for quantity of evidence, but only quality of evidence. In a given case like `this, when the prosecution rests its case on solitary testimony of a single witness, before accepting the same, the Court must scrutinize it with care and caution and if satisfied, it can recordconviction. Before the Supreme Court, in such a situation, where the testimony was sole, the same was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in the case of BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2010(7) SCALE 478) and it is held as follows:- " 25. In Sunil Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367, this Court repelled a similar submission observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 26. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150, this Court re-iterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. 27. In Kunju @ Balachandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381, a similar view has been re-iterated placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this court including Jagdish https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prasad Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251; and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614." 15. A reading of the above would clearly indicate that even in the case of testimony of solitary witness, if the said evidence is acceptable, the Court can enter conviction on the basis of sole testimony. In the instant case, P.W.2 has categorically stated that his house is situated 100 feet away from the place of occurrence. Both of his sons went out for taking tea. He just came and witnessed the occurrence. At the time of occurrence, when the other two accused caught hold of the deceased, this appellant stabbed the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 remains unshaken. This part of ocular testimony projected by the prosecution stood fully corroborated through medical evidence by P.W.12 Doctor, who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body and given his medical opinion that the injury which was found on the left plank and corresponding internal injury was fatal and thus, it caused death. 16. Apart from the above, the prosecution, to its advantage, had the evidence in respect of the confession statement and recovery of M.Os.3, the weapon of crime and M.O.4 blood stained shirt. As per the evidence of P.W.11 Village Administrative Officer, in whose presence, the accused/appellant was arrested and the accused gave confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded by P.W.11 Village Administrative Officer and consequent upon the same, he produced M.Os.3 and 4. In so far as the evidence of P.W.11 Village Administrative Officer is concerned, it remained intact. Thus, the recovery of weapon of crime and also the blood stained shirt are also found human blood, on analysis, pointing to the nexus of crime between the accused and the deceased. 17. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case through ocular testimony of P.W.2, which stood fully corroborated through medical evidence apart from recovery of weapon of crime following the confession statement. Hence, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit. This Court is convinced that the prosecution has suffice evidence to hold that the accused carried the knife and stabbed the deceased on his left plank and caused his death within a short span of time. The previous enmity was also spoken to by the witnesses. All put together would go to show that it was the act of murder, which was intentionally done by the accused and the learned Trial Judge was perfectly correct in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarding Life Imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Salem. 3. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 5. The District Collector, Salem. 6. The Director General of Police, Madras – 4. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 8.The Inspector of Police, Karumalikudal Police Station, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 1 cc To Mr.A. Sundaravadhanan, Advocate, SR.69011 Crl. A. No.358 of 2010 mbs(co) pmk.4.1.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/