Case: Selveraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

was closed. But, in order to make Manisekaran an eyewitness, the prosecution came forward with the story that he was sent by Natesan with edibles for his children at 8.15 p.m. This is a tall story which is difficult to believe. There is no reason why at 8.15 p.m. Manisekaran should have been asked by Natesan to purchase edibles from the market and carry them to the house for the children. In all probability the children would have finished their meals. Even if Manisekaran carried edibles to the house of Natesan, there is no reason why he should have waited there for half an hour from 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. in order to be able to witness the incident. It is again strange and unusual that though Manisekaran saw the appellant stabbing the deceased, he did not utter any shout or attempt to run out of the house for purpose of seeking help for the deceased. We are not at all satisfied that Manisekaran was an eyewitness to incident and his testimony cannot be relied upon for the purpose of supporting the conviction of the appellant.6. The oral testimony of Natesan and Manisekaran was sought to be supported by the evidence of Angamuthu. But we do not think that the evidence of Angamuthu is of such a nature as to inspire any confidence. In the first place, out of three persons, namely, Angamuthu, Madhavan and Sunderarajan, who were supposed to have come to the house of Natesan after the stabbing of the deceased, Angamuthu alone was examined as a witness. Secondly, the story narrated by Angamuthu is inherently improbable. What Angamuthu said was that when he and others were sitting at the Mariamman Temple. They saw the appellant running away with a knife in his hand and when questioned, the appellant said that he had stabbed the wife of Natesan tailor and wreaked vengeance. Now, it is difficult to believe that after committing the murder of the deceased, the appellant would be running in the open street holding in his hand, for everyone to see, the knife with which hand stabbed the deceased. Moreover, when he is questioned as to why he is running away, he would hardly stop for the purpose of answering the question and boastfully proclaim that he had killed Natesan tailors wife and wreaked vengeance. The entire evidence of Angamuthu in this regard sounds highly improbable and we find ourselves unable to accept it.7. The prosecution relied strongly on the evidence of recovery of the knife from the appellant. But this evidence is also far from satisfactory. The recovery of the knife was made under mazahar Ex. P-10 which was attested by A. Saleem and Rajarathnam. Now, out of these two witnesses only one came to give evidence, namely, A. Saleem. He stated that at the time of the incident he was in his shed carrying out repairs to the lorry of Rajarathnam and when they heard about the incident, they proceeded towards the hospital, but on the way then learnt that Natesan had gone to the police station and so they also went to the police station. Whilst they were at the police station, the appellant came running to the police station with the knife in his hand and gave a statement and then the Head Constable seized the knife under mazahar Ex P-10 which was signed by both of them. Now it is difficult to accept this evidence at its face value. In the first place, it is difficult to see why A. Saleem and Rajarathnam should have gone to the police station on their own, merely on learning about the incident. It is not stated by A. Saleem that he was in any way friendly with Natesan so that on hearing about the occurrence, he would be induced to go to the police station in order to held Natesan. It is a well-known fact that ordinarily people do not willingly go to the police station unless there is some compelling reason to do so. And even if A. Saleem had some reason to go to the police station, why should Rajarathnam also have accompanied him ? It is also rather significant that the Head Constable, who prepared the mazahar Ex. P-10, did not even bother to take down fathers name and address of Saleem and Rajarathnam. He did not know these two witnesses before and if he did not take down their addresses, it is difficult to understand how he could hope to be able to secure their presence at the time of the trial. Then again, if we look at the mazahar Ex. P-10, it appears to be a suspicious document. The words "blood stained" seem to have been added subsequently on the back side of the mazahar Ex. P-10 and it does appear from the way in which the last paragraph has been compressed in order to accommodate it within the space above the signature of Saleem that the signature of Saleem and Rajarathnam were first taken on a blank sheet of paper and then the contents of the Mazahar Ex. P-10 were written out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also doubted the genuineness of the mazahar Ex. P-10 and declined to place any reliance on the recovery of the knife. The High Court unfortunately did not refer to this infirmity in the prosecution evidence. We are afraid it is not possible to place any reliance on the recovery of the knife from the appellant and if the evidence in regard to the recovery of the knife is suspect, it would equally be unsafe to place reliance on the evidence in regard to the recovery of the shirt and the pant.8. It would thus be seen that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded as sufficient to found the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant, must, therefore, be acquitted of the offence charged against him.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is also rather significant that the Head Constable, who prepared the mazahar Ex.did not even bother to take down fathers name and address of Saleem and Rajarathnam. He did not know these two witnesses before and if he did not take down their addresses, it is difficult to understand how he could hope to be able to secure their presence at the time of the trial. Then again, if we look at the mazahar Ex.it appears to be a suspicious document. The words "blood stained" seem to have been added subsequently on the back side of the mazahar Ex.and it does appear from the way in which the last paragraph has been compressed in order to accommodate it within the space above the signature of Saleem that the signature of Saleem and Rajarathnam were first taken on a blank sheet of paper and then the contents of the Mazahar Ex.were written out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also doubted the genuineness of the mazahar Ex.and declined to place any reliance on the recovery of the knife. The High Court unfortunately did not refer to this infirmity in the prosecution evidence. We are afraid it is not possible to place any reliance on the recovery of the knife from the appellant and if the evidence in regard to the recovery of the knife is suspect, it would equally be unsafe to place reliance on the evidence in regard to the recovery of the shirt and the pant.8. It would thus be seen that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded as sufficient to found the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant, must, therefore, be acquitted of the offence charged against him.