Case: Meera Mydeen Etc.Etc Vs. State Of T.Nadu

Court had gone wrong in law while arriving at the conclusion on this aspect. 26. Similarly, the Courts below have given convincing reasons, after analyzing the evidence of certain witnesses that the presence of the appellants at the scene of occurrence stood established. Here again, the only attempt was to discredit the testimony of these witnesses by trying to point out certain infirmities without raising any substantial questions of law. We may record that the High Court has inter alia stated that PW-2, PW-3 and PW- 4 have corroborated each other with regard to the presence of the appellants, thereby establishing the following factors on record: 1) The presence of Srinivasa Perumal and PW-4 is spoken to by PWs-2 and 3. They have said that PW-4 was there with Srinivasa Perumal near the flower market. 2) All the three have spoken of the presence of A-1 to A-4 near the sugar cane crusher. PWs-2 and 3 have referred to one of the other three, smoking cigarette. 3) All the three witnesses have spoken of D-2 coming that way in the Avanti two wheelers with D-1 in the pillion. 4) PWs-2 and 3 have spoken of the fact that the man smoking cigarette stopped D-2 by holding the left shoulder. PW5 has deposed that A- 3 had first stabbed D-2 by holding his shoulder. 5) All the three referred to A-1 making a sign to other three. 6) PW-2 was standing near the scene of occurrence with an auto and he has mentioned the presence of another auto near the spot. The driver is Kasillah, who has not been examined. PW-3 had mentioned the presence of the auto and so does PW-4. 7) They also have spoken of the threat by A-2 to the auto driver, who was standing there. 27. In the process, the High Court dealt with the arguments of the defense and has given cogent reasons in not accepting the same with the conclusion that these witnesses were speaking the truth. It is not at all pointed out as to what the legal error was committed by the High Court in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion.28. Even the argument of the belated examination of witnesses is dealt with in great detail and the High Court has given its own reasons while rejecting this submission, some of which is worthy of reproduction, as under:"31. Belated Examination of the Witnesses:- It was urged on behalf of the appellant that many of the witnesses had come forward with their statements to the police belatedly and therefore that must be viewed with suspicion. In this regard, we must remember what case of prosecution is as regard reasons for this double murder. There was a murder of one prominent person belonging to one community in 1994, immediately in retaliation; there was a murder of another prominent person of the other community. D1 was interrogated with regard to the second murder. The judgment with regard to the second murder was about to be pronounced at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, it is the case of the Prosecution that the motive for this double murder was the communal enmity. When that is so, and when on account of communal feeling people were killed, it is difficult to expect witnesses and that too witnesses such as PW3, who had nothing to do with even the place of occurrence to come forward to speak about the occurrence. Moreover, they will not be easily identified by the police until some evidence surfaces to link them or witnesses come forward to report to the police about what they had seen or heard. That there was all round panic in Dindigul is spoken of not just by one witness, but many. The atmosphere was tension-charged and it is extremely natural for a person, who had witnessed something or who had knowledge about the conspiracy to be guarded before disclosing the game the police. PW2 was present at the time of Inquest. It is only, when lie was examined by PW33 that he came out with what he had seen. In this regard, he stated that soon after the occurrence, his uncle died and therefore, he went away to Periyakulam end stayed there 10 to 15 days. During this period the police had come to his house several times. Therefore, his landlord asked him to vacate the house. This is a very natural reaction. In such situation, people do not want to have any connection with possible chance of trouble. This further strengthens the prosecution case that no one was readily willing to give statement to the police. The tension had to die down, and after mustering courage, people slowly started giving whatever information they had. When the Special Investigating Team started investigation, they assured PW2 that he could tell them freely and frankly whatever he knew and it is thereafter, he had come forward with his statement. He was shown an album with full of photograph and on 16.04.2011, he identified A-2 to R-6. It is elicited in his cross-examination that he did not tell all the details because he was scared. "...I did not tell Dindigul police on 10.01.1997 night what I told in the chief-examination. I was afraid and agitated because I had withered the murder. I could not speak anything at that time. So I did tell the police anything properly. After Dindigul police enquiry, I wanted to say all that I said in chief-examination, but because of fear, I did not..."29. In the same manner, deposition of PW-3, PW-6 and other witnesses is considered and convincing reasons are given for arriving at a conclusion that the evidence given by these witnesses for not coming forward with their statements at the early stage was quite understandable and natural and the so called delay did not in any way discredit their credibility. The High Court also relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Krishna Pal and another v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 194.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]20. It becomes clear from the reading of the impugned judgment of the High Court that the conviction is primarily based on the testimony of6 andand in the process support from the depositions given by32 andwho were the investigating officers. Conscious of this position, first attempt on the part of Mr. Karpagavinagam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, was to demonstrate that these witnesses were unworthy of reliance because of various infirmities in their depositions and, therefore, the Courts below should not have acted upon their depositions. It was next argued that there was abnormal delay in recording the statement of main witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigating officers which clearly showed that these witnesses are either improved their statements or even introduced at a later date in order to make a false acquisition against the appellants. In this very hue, it was further contended by the learned senior counsel that piecemeal information was supplied by the witnesses from which it could clearly be inferred that there was an improvement on their part about their original version. In nutshell, these arguments were advanced with the purpose to discredit the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. We are not reproducing the purported discrepancies which were pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the simple reason that this very exercise was undertaken by the counsel for the appellant even before the High Court. The High Court after taking note of such submissions has dealt with them elaborately. Brushing aside the said arguments, it has concluded that the depositions of these witnesses are reliable.21. Scope of power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is well defined and explained by catena of judgments. It is not necessary to refer to all those judgments and the purpose would be served by citing few judgments which bring out the width of the scope of scrutiny by this Court in such matters. In State of U.P. v. Babul Nath, (1994) 6 SCC 29 , it was held that under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not normally reappraise the evidence by itself and go into the question of credibility of witnesses and the assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted by the Supreme Court as final unless, of course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error ofre or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.We have gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court and have also given the brief description of the manner in which the High Court has structured its judgment and discuss various aspects. As already pointed out, the High Court, in the first instance, discussed the issue of conspiracy and on the basis of testimony of certain witnesses and material produced on record, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to establish existence of conspiracy. In the process, the High Court has discussed in detail the testimonies of7 etc. Two Courts below have, thus, returned a finding, based on the evidence produced on record, that conspiracy between the appellants to kill the deceased stood established. In the instant appeal which arises out of special leave petition filed under Article 136 of the Constriction, it is not for this Court tothe evidence, unless it is found that the findings are totally perverse. No attempt was made to demonstrate as to how the High Court had gone wrong in law while arriving at the conclusion on this aspect.In the process, the High Court dealt with the arguments of the defense and has given cogent reasons in not accepting the same with the conclusion that these witnesses were speaking the truth. It is not at all pointed out as to what the legal error was committed by the High Court in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion.28. Even the argument of the belated examination of witnesses is dealt with in great detail and the High Court has given its own reasons while rejecting this submission, some of which is worthy of reproduction, as under:"31. Belated Examination of the Witnesses:It was urged on behalf of the appellant that many of the witnesses had come forward with their statements to the police belatedly and therefore that must be viewed with suspicion. In this regard, we must remember what case of prosecution is as regard reasons for this double murder. There was a murder of one prominent person belonging to one community in 1994, immediately in retaliation; there was a murder of another prominent person of the other community. D1 was interrogated with regard to the second murder. The judgment with regard to the second murder was about to be pronounced at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, it is the case of the Prosecution that the motive for this double murder was the communal enmity. When that is so, and when on account of communal feeling people were killed, it is difficult to expect witnesses and that too witnesses such as PW3, who had nothing to do with even the place of occurrence to come forward to speak about the occurrence. Moreover, they will not be easily identified by the police until some evidence surfaces to link them or witnesses come forward to report to the police about what they had seen or heard. That there was all round panic in Dindigul is spoken of not just by one witness, but many. The atmosphere wasand it is extremely natural for a person, who had witnessed something or who had knowledge about the conspiracy to be guarded before disclosing the game the police. PW2 was present at the time of Inquest. It is only, when lie was examined by PW33 that he came out with what he had seen. In this regard, he stated that soon after the occurrence, his uncle died and therefore, he went away to Periyakulam end stayed there 10 to 15 days. During this period the police had come to his house several times. Therefore, his landlord asked him to vacate the house. This is a very natural reaction. In such situation, people do not want to have any connection with possible chance of trouble. This further strengthens the prosecution case that no one was readily willing to give statement to the police. The tension had to die down, and after mustering courage, people slowly started giving whatever information they had. When the Special Investigating Team started investigation, they assured PW2 that he could tell them freely and frankly whatever he knew and it is thereafter, he had come forward with his statement. He was shown an album with full of photograph and on 16.04.2011, he identified6. It is elicited in histhat he did not tell all the details because he was scared. "...I did not tell Dindigul police on 10.01.1997 night what I told in theI was afraid and agitated because I had withered the murder. I could not speak anything at that time. So I did tell the police anything properly. After Dindigul police enquiry, I wanted to say all that I said inbut because of fear, I did not..."29. In the same manner, deposition ofand other witnessesis considered and convincing reasons are given for arriving at a conclusion that the evidence given by these witnesses for not coming forward with their statements at the early stage was quite understandable and natural and the so called delay did not in any way discredit their credibility. The High Court also relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Krishna Pal and another v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 194.