Case: State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Rajendran &amp; Others

why A2 would ask the deceased about the whereabouts of PW 5. Evidence shows that the deceased answered by stating that PW5 has gone to Madras. High Court was of the view that some material should have been brought on record to show that PW 5 was not actually in town and had gone to Madras or any other place. The High Court thereafter came to the conclusion which according to us, is totally absurd that it was not possible to infer from the evidence of PW5 that he had gone to Madras and, therefore, the very question by A2 to the deceased and the answer that came out appears to be artificial. Probably, according to the High Court the prosecution wanted to have a platform from which they wanted to develop their case. It was also found that there was considerable delay in sending Ex.P1 to P7 to the court.It was therefore held that the credibility of Ex.P1 to P7 were in serious doubt and therefore the prosecution case was vulnerable.Additionally, it was held that certain partly digested food articles were found in the stomach of the deceased. According to the High Court, evidence should have been led to show as to at what point of time the deceased took his last meal.It was also held that the evidence of PWs 1 & 3 shows that they could not have been present at the place of occurrence as the investigating officer had not examined anybody to conclude that PW 1 & 3 were present at the spot of occurrence. It was also noted that in the inquest report, the name of PW 3 was not there and, therefore, he was not present. Accordingly, as aforesaid, the acquittal was directed. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the conclusions of the High Court are not only contrary to evidence on record but also are based on surmises and conjectures. There was really no delay in sending the FIR and/or inquest report to the court. The suggestions given by the accused probabilised the presence of the eye witnesses. It was indirectly accepted in the cross examination that A1, A3 and A4 repeatedly stabbed the deceased with velsticks but the suggestion was that the witnesses had not counted the number of times the stabs were given by A1, A3 and A4. The reason why the documents reached magistrates court late has been explained by PW 8 whose evidence has not at all being discussed. So far as the inquest report is concerned, it is not necessary that names of all the witnesses should be mentioned. Even otherwise the name of PW 1 has been specifically noted. That was sufficient. So far as the partly digested food is concerned, the doctor has categorically stated that in the absence of the time when the last meal was taken, it could not have been inferred. The doctor has categorically stated that the time of death was the time as stated by the eye witnesses.5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was partly digested food as found by the doctor PW 10. The inquest report does not show the presence of PW 3, so, in any event PW1 whose name has been stated becomes the solitary witness. The foundational facts are in doubt and the view taken by the High Court is a possible view and so there is no scope for interference as the High Court has considered the totality of the circumstances and there was manipulation of times.6. To begin with, we find the High Courts judgment is full of abrupt conclusions and some times contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has considered certain factors to be material whereas in fact they are not so. For example the non-mention of the name of the deceased in the company of PW 5 in Ex.P5 has been considered to be a vital omission. No basis for such a conclusion has been indicated. There was nothing to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that material should have been shown to show that PW 5 was actually not in town and had gone to Madras or any other place. It is surprising that the High Court rests its view on a totally unfounded conclusion that the question put by A2 and the answer by PW5 appear to be artificial. So far as the delay in sending Ex.P1 and P2 is concerned, the evidence of PW 8 is clear and cogent as to why the document reached the court late. There is not even any discussion as to why the explanation given was not acceptable. So far as the presence of partly digested food is concerned, the High Court came to a conclusion on purely surmises that it can be reasonably presumed that the deceased had taken food before the occurrence had taken place and the presence of food particles postponed the time of occurrence. It again came to an abrupt and absurd conclusion that probably the time of occurrence could have been fixed after 7.30 or 8 PM on the day in question. The High Court came to another erroneous conclusion that PW 8 had carried Ex.P18. The material on record clearly shows that it is not really so. The conclusion that the investigating officer should have examined somebody else to conclude that PWs.1 and 3 were present at the scene of occurrence is legally unsupportable. As rightly submitted, the inquest report need not contain the names of all the witnesses. In any event the name of PW 1 was stated. There is no discussion as to in what manner the evidence of PWs.1 & 3 suffered from any infirmity. The High Court seems to have been obsessed with the idea that there was alleged delay in dispatch, casting doubt on authenticity of the FIR, the inquest report. Conclusions arrived at are totally without foundation. The High Courts order is indefensible and is set aside. 7.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]we find the High Courts judgment is full of abrupt conclusions and some times contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has considered certain factors to be material whereas in fact they are not so. For example the non-mention of the name of the deceased in the company of PW 5 in Ex.P5 has been considered to be a vital omission. No basis for such a conclusion has been indicated. There was nothing to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that material should have been shown to show that PW 5 was actually not in town and had gone to Madras or any other place. It is surprising that the High Court rests its view on a totally unfounded conclusion that the question put by A2 and the answer by PW5 appear to be artificial. So far as the delay in sending Ex.P1 and P2 is concerned, the evidence of PW 8 is clear and cogent as to why the document reached the court late. There is not even any discussion as to why the explanation given was not acceptable. So far as the presence of partly digested food is concerned, the High Court came to a conclusion on purely surmises that it can be reasonably presumed that the deceased had taken food before the occurrence had taken place and the presence of food particles postponed the time of occurrence. It again came to an abrupt and absurd conclusion that probably the time of occurrence could have been fixed after 7.30 or 8 PM on the day in question. The High Court came to another erroneous conclusion that PW 8 had carried Ex.P18. The material on record clearly shows that it is not really so. The conclusion that the investigating officer should have examined somebody else to conclude that PWs.1 and 3 were present at the scene of occurrence is legally unsupportable. As rightly submitted, the inquest report need not contain the names of all the witnesses. In any event the name of PW 1 was stated. There is no discussion as to in what manner the evidence of PWs.1 & 3 suffered from any infirmity. The High Court seems to have been obsessed with the idea that there was alleged delay in dispatch, casting doubt on authenticity of the FIR, the inquest report. Conclusions arrived at are totally without foundation. The High Courts order is indefensible and is set aside.