S. SUBBULAXMI versus KUMARASAMY & ORS.
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 238, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
..... 
S. SUBBULAXMI 
v. 
KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 2007) 
JULY06, 2017 
.. [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 34, 302 and 506(11) - Accused as 
well as victim parties are closely related persons - Land dispute 
C 
between parties resulting in death of appellant's husband -
Conviction of accused ulss. 34, 302 and 506(11) and sentenced 
accordingly by the trial court - Order of conviction set aside by the 
High Court - interference with - Held: Not called for - Applying 
judicial scrutiny to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 
prosecution story not trustworthy - Prosecution failed to prove the 
D guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Material on record 
shows huge suspicion and the evidence adduced on record full of 
contradictions - On basis of such evidence, not safe to fasten the 
liability on the accused - Investigating agency ignored its paramount 
duty of bringing home the guilt of the accused with probable 
E 
evidence as admissible under law, rather, spent time and mind on 
creating 'two occurrences and substantiating the same with the 
circumstances - Thus, the High Court had compelling and substantial 
reasons to set aside the order of conviction and sentence against 
the accused - Evidence. 
F 
G 
" H 
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 
(2016) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 1 SCR 913; Hare Krishna 
Singh & Ors. v. State ofBihar (1988) 2 SCC 95 : [1988] 
3 SCR 1; Appabhai & Anr: v.
State of Gujarat (1988) 
Suppl. SCC 241; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati 
Ramulu & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2644 : [1994] 1 Suppl. . 
SCC 590; Ashish Batham v. State of MP. (2002) 7 SCC 
317: [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 146; Joginder Singh v. State 
of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 335 - referred to. 
238
S.·SUBBULAXMlv. KUMARASAMY & .ORS. 
239 
/ , 
/ 
Case Law Reference 
-- / / 
A 
/ 
i 
(2016] 1 SCR 913 . 
referred to . 
Para9 
I 
(1988) 3 SCR 1 
referred to 
Para9 . 
I 
I 
(1988) Suppl. sec 241 
referred to 
Para9 
I . 
-
i 
11994] 1 Suppl. sec 590 
referred to 
Para 13 
B 
' I 
(2002) 2 SuppL SCR 146 
referred to 
Para 13 
(2014j it. sec 335 
ref erred to · Para.IS 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE lURISDICTIQN: Criminal Appeal No .. 
1737 of 2007. 
· 
·· . · ... ·'-,.,. 
· 
.. . 
c 
FrQmtheJudgment~dOrderdated~.{)3iooSoftheHighCourt 
i · ... of Judi~a\ure!llMadras in Criminal Appeal No. 619 of!997. 
! 
' Jayant Muth Raj, Ms. Malavika J., C. K. Sasi, Advs. for the 
Appellant 
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv., R. Nedumaran, S. Syed 
Mahaboob, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Ms. Maha Lakshmi, Partha 
Sarathi, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
. N. v. RAM;\NA. J, lo Aggneved by thejud@iieiiidaied '22..i E 
March. 2005 passed eyihe High Court ofJudicatuk iit M~s'hl Criiniiial 
Appe~I No~ 6~9. of I 997, th~ aJ)pCJlant ( coniplainautJ filed the piesent 
appeitl. By the judgment impugoed herein,~. High Court has set aside 
the 9rder ofCQnviction passed byibe trial'Court for the offences under 
Secti~llS 34, 30z and S06(Il) Indian Penal Code, l 860 (!PC) and acquitted · F 
the accused 
. 
-· 
. · . 2. Brief facts leading to thi~ appeal as discerned from the 
prosecution case are that tht! members ofvictim as well as accused 
gn;.ips are' closely related to
one another. S. Subbulaxmi who is the 
appellant/complainant is the wife of the decease<l-Subramani. Respondent 
G 
No l'(Al) and Respondent No. 3 (A3) arehl!Sbl\lld an4 w~e. Respondent . 
· .. · 
No. 2 (A2)is the coiisill brother of Respondent N1>. l. (A I). ·Respondent 
· 
. No. 3 (A3) is $ister of the deceased-SubraIDaiii. dOvindswamy (DW2) 
is the father of Al. An amount ofRs.40,000/~ was hiiuded over to the 
father of deceased at the time of mamage ofappellant with the deceased 
H 
, 
• 
~· 
I
-
-~· . 
.. 240 
SUPREME COURT REPOR,TS · , . .. 
. [2017] 7 S.C.R. 
,A and the same was deposited in a bank in the.names ofappellant and the 
deceased. The father of deceased wanteii' his son (deceased) and 
. daugli.ter~in~law (appellant)' to iend an WDQUnt ofRs:40,000/~ for the 
"'-· -
. . , · 
purpose of purchasing some agricultural land in the nwnes of his son-in-
; 
,law (Al) and hjs fat~e((D~2>; It appears .that ther~,was :in oral . 
,, . . 
agreement between'the ·deeeased and his father. to the effect that in 
· ,B exchange ofRS.40,000/-, father of the decea5ed will tranSfer thiee acies 
. , ... · .. ' 
: . ofland to his son. After same time, the father of deceased, instead of .. 
. 
. .· . ; '. .;-.1 ' tranSferrlng the proiiiised three acres ofland to his' ~Oll, leased OUt the , .. 
; : '•· • . '.• S\lme to.thi;:fathet ofA,.1, giving way to Strained refatioriS 6eh_veen the·: 
, _. 
.. 'deceased and his brother-in-law (Al)which further aggravated when. · 
I 
• . 
t· the deceasCd started cultivatiJig paddy in the land leased out tci'the' fl}ther . . .· 
·' · · ; ofALTuW.;itappearstherewasadisputebe!Weenthepartiesinrespect ·.• ·: .. 
!' · ::::o,rthispi.~e~fl~~: ·;.·:.' i ... ' 
< 
"·::"; · 
~:····.· .. : ; · · 
· · 
· 3. In the evening hours of 15,. September, 1994, the .. appellant · 
.. ·' 
while ciltting grass iri her field saw the responden!S (Al toAJ) working. 
• : . . · · , D '. .fu·a nearby field who created a commotion by saying to eacii other that . . .. 
. .
· ·. 
·they are not going to spare the appellant's husband Subramani (deeeased) 
.. ::'.'. ,,, :.. • .... ·since he beat DW' 2 (father of AI). ··Soon thereiifter, 'respondent No.'!.· 
•.:·:.;:': .. , ·i; .. ··(Al) leftthefieldc~inganiro.nrod usedforienioyingc<iconut husk, · 
· · . · . · · · · alongwithA2 andA3.Worried bj theiraggression,awJlantl COIDf1lainant 
. ; 
~ !.;. ' \ 
"'. 'fieri:in followed lheID; on the "\vay sh~met PW s 2 and 3' and all -~f theni . • 
'':· .. ~:. l'.'.~ .· 'cPWs 1,2& 3)followedtlieaceusedp3rty;.iridattheplace'of'occurieni:{ • . · ' · 
>; : . . .. ··. 0 they saw DW2 sitting'on the road and husband of the. appellant· .· ·. 
'; · : :;. ·f ; : (deceaSed) standing at some nearby place. On seeingithe deceased; Al 
:. ' ,._ 
... ;;rafitowardshUllandattackedwith theironrodgivinga blow on his head .. 
:·. -' • . . • . :and stabbed on the left cheCkJ :A2 and A3 'also' picked up 'some can 
·~.·; .. ··.: . 'p' ····twigs andcontinuously attaeked on the legs and liands'ofthedeceased. 
'"i ''; " ' '. ·. ' After beating the deceased with iron rod and cart twigs, all the·aei:used · 
'.''-'1 . '" .·' • • thie\v' away their arms. and left the scene of offence: After that;'PWl ·. 
. . : 
1 
• 
::.? ;: : <. ·:'l~ith'the' help o( PW2,' took lier htisband to the Government H9spital; 
·· .. · · · 
•>:.si ·.e:,\ '~.oae'.ii1 a .taxi'where the Doctor (PW to> Jeclareiibim dead, ·and · 
. .. 
. .. .. informed police~ Sub-Inspector of Chennjmalai Police Station (PW9)' • 
. :
,<;J . visited hospital, recorded the staiement of PW 1 (Ext.P 1) iffid registered 
: 
.·. 
the saine as Crime No: 398/94 .. Meanwhile, one Ponnusamy (not 
. examined) got adilii#ed father'of Al. (DW2) in the same Government 
· ~·· • · •. ·· · : l!ospital.at Erode; ·Jlie ~? 
I?,ii.Ctor wh,o .had examined the deceased . 
· ,,also ,examjne4·DW2:>Laterp~P,W9 recordecl !)W~:ss.tatemen.t iffid .. 
.. ' 
. 
·' ,.·•·'.'••"f ..... , •.••.• ·--, ,-.'--·'·'·· ·---
_ ........ 
-·-'-·<· 
..• 
' 
. 
, c,. ···~He 
·~ 
.;,: 
__ . 
. . 
~--·
S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
(N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
241 
registered Crime No. 399194 against the deceased and undertook A 
investigation in both the cases. 'The inquest was conducted on the next 
day and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. 1.0. 
s'eized bloodstained iron rod, cart twigs, bloodstained and normal earth 
and recorded statements of the doctors. The accused were arrested on 
17th September, 1994 from a bus-stand, blood stained dhoti and shirt 
8 
worn by A2 were seized. All the material objects were sent for chemical 
analysis. The investigation in Crime No. 399/94 was continued for about 
three months and finally the proceedings were dropped by PW 11 -
Inspector of Police for the reason that the accused in that case has 
already died on 15-09-1994. 
4. During the course of trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused 
C 
eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two 
witnesses were examined for defence. After appreciating both oral and 
documentary evidence, the Principal Sessions Judge came to the 
conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the 
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty. 
D 
Accordingly, the l ''accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment 
for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The 2
11d and 3rd accused were 
sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 34 read 
with Section 302 IPC. All the three accused were further sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 
506(11) IPC. All the sentences were however directed to run concurrently. 
5. All the three accused approached the High Court questioning 
E 
the order of conviction imposed by the trial Court. Having not satisfied 
with the case of the prosecution, the High Court acquitted all the three 
accused of all the charges framed against them. Therefore, l:ieillg 
unsatisfied with the order of acquittal, the wife of the deceased/ 
F 
complainant is before us in this appeal impugning the judgment passed 
by the High Court. 
6. The learned senior CO\jnsel appearing for the appellant/ 
complainant contended that the High Court gravely erred in not taking 
into consideration the unimpeachable testimony of the eye witness which 
G 
is cogent, consistent, reliable, corroborating and establishes the guilt of 
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned senior counsel 
argued that the place of occurrence, recovery of weapons used, the 
chemical analyst's report clearly establish the case of the prosecution 
and the High Court completely ignored to delve into these material facts. 
H
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
B 
c 
7. The learned s.enior counsel further advanced his argument that 
the injuries on DW2 were clearly explained by the prosecution. The 
statement of PW2 and the Accident Information Report of PW2 support 
·- the case of the prosecution ahd it is duly corroborated by the evidence 
· of doctor. The.interpolation with regard to the time ·of incident, according 
to the senior counsel, does not affect the case of the prosecution and 
that cannot be a ground to acquitthe accused. 
8. The learned senior counsel summed up his arguments by 
submitting that the judgment of the High Court is perverse and untem1ble 
as it did not take .into consideration the unimpeachable evidence of 
independent witness and that the view taken by the High· Court in 
acquitting the accused is unsustainable in law in the presence of 
overwhelming evidence in the form of eye witness, observation mahazars, 
sketches; forensic reports with regard to blood stains on material objects 
and weapons used by .the accused for committing the crime. 
9. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied upon 
D 
the decision of this Court in Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar 
Pradesh & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 357, Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. Vs. 
State ofBihar (1988) 2 SCC 95 and Appablrai & Anr. Vs. State of 
Gujarat ( 1988) Supp. SCC 241. 
E 
F 
10. Mr. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the accused/respondents, supported the impugned
judgment. The 
learned senior counsel. for the accused submitted that the two FIRs are 
created by PW9 and the entire investigation has been conducted in a 
partisan manner in order to prove the alleged crime against the accused. 
The police changed the original features of the incident and projected as 
if there are two different incidents; one at 4.00 p.m. and the other at 
5.00 p.m. According to the learned senior counsel, there is only one 
occurrence and it took place at 4.00 p.m. 
11. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel.that in fact it was 
the deceased who raised violence upon DW2 and injured him badly. 
G 
DW2 never gave a complaint to the police but it is a creation by the 
police preventing the accused taking the plea of self defence. 
12. It is vehemently argued that when Subramani was already 
declared dead on 15.09.1994 itself in the hospital, how the complaint 
received from DW2 at 10.00 p.m. was registered by the police at 2.00 
H 
a.m. in the night and the police prolonged the investigation till 28.12.1994
S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
[N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
and led a perfunctory investigation. 
13. The learned senior counsel relied upon State ofAndhra 
Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramulu & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2644, and Ashish 
Batham Vs. State of M.P. ( 2002) 7 SCC 317. 
243 
A 
14. The learned senior counsel pointed out at the !aches of the 
prosecution case with regard to non-mentioning of the details in the 
B 
Accident Register as to who brought the deceased to the hospital and 
what is the time of incident. But, contrary to this, in the Acciden.t Register 
pertaining to DW2, it was specifically mentioned that PonnW?wamy brought 
him to hospital and the incident took place at 4.00 PM. Secondly, as per 
the post-mortem certificate, the deceased sustained 6 serious bleeding c 
injuries on scalp of the head and according to the appella.nt/complainant, 
she brought the accused to the hospital and she kept his head on her lap. 
There is no material to show that her saree was stained w,ith blood nor 
was there any seizure of the same. Hence, it is a fabricated story. 
15. The learned senior counsel summed up his argument by D 
submitting that the police have led atainted investigation only to help the 
appellant by implicating Al to A3 because of their long strained 
relationship. The statement of DW2 was recorded.by the police and 
admittedly he was severely injured and the police did not obtain any 
certificatefrotn the Doctor before recording l:lis statement which shows 
that ~here is
no legitimate enquiry .. The police o~tained the thumb 
impression ofDW2 on the ground that he sustained injuries which proved 
E 
to be wrong as DW2's left forearm was fractured. According to him, 
the entire prosecution story is aimed at only implicating the accused 
persons in thefalse case, which the High Court has rightly disbelieved 
and there is no reason for this Court to interfere. Learned senior counsel 
relied upon the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh Vs. State of 
Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 335. 
16. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length 
F 
and perused the material available on record in detail. In a case like this 
where the defence plea is that the prosecution had withheld the actual 
G 
occurrence and. cre'ated two separate incidents with tampered and 
suppressed documen!t (Ext. Pl 0 and Ext. Pl 4), it was obligatory for the 
Courts below to ensure whether the prosecution has come up with the 
true version or' merely presented a perfunctory and tailored case to suit 
its plan of securing conviction of the accused Now, the simple question 
H
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
that falls for our consideration is -
whether the High Court was right in 
disbelieving the prosecution story and acquitting the accused/ respondents 
to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. 
B 
c 
17. It is clear from the material placed before us that the accused 
as well as victim parties are closely related persons and they were at 
loggerheads over a land dispute which created strained relationship 
between them leading to the untoward incident. We have meticulously 
gone through the Complaint (Ext. Pl) of the appellant and the statement 
of DW2 (Ext. Pl4) recorded by PW9. lt is on record that PW9 in his 
examination categorically stated tnat on the day of incident at 7 .30 pm, 
the Head Constable from Erode Government Hospital Outpost Police 
Station informed him over phone that Subramani (deceased) involved in 
the scuffle had died in the hospital and DW2 was admitted with injuries. 
After that, he visited hospital, received complaint (Ext. Pl) from PW l 
at 8.45 pm and registered it at 12.30 am (Ext. P9). He further deposed 
that he received complaint from DW2 (Ext. Pl4)at 10 pm in the hospital 
D 
and registered it at 2.00 am on 16.9.1994 (Ext. PIO). However, it is 
somewhat mysterious that though he received complaint from PWl at 
8.45 pm, he did not register it till 12.30 am, akin to this, the complaint 
from DW2 though received at l 0 pm, was not registered till 2.00 am and 
no explanation is forthcoming for the
delay. On the other hand, DW2 
E 
F 
made a definite statement that Ext. Pi4 complaint was never given by 
him to the police and police did not approach him at all.' 0: 
18. It is the case of prosecution that Crime No. 399/94 was 
registered basing on the Complaint (Ext.Pl4) of DW2 and PW! l 
investigated the case. Admittedly, PWs 9 and 11 are well aware of the 
fact that the accused in Crime No. 399/94 has already died on 15-09~ 
1994. The record shows that prosecution has carried on the investigation 
against the dead person till 28-12-1994 and finally closed the proceedings 
on the very ground that the accused has already died on 15-09-1994. 
Though the investigation went on for three months, the prosecution has 
failed to bring on record statements of witnesses, if examined, or any 
G 
incriminating material that was seized. 
19. There is also lack of satisfactory explanation from the 
prosecution about interpolation carried out on Ext.P 1 and Ext. P9 changing 
the time of occurrence from 4 pm to 5 pm. Undoubtedly, this lacuna 
goes to the-root of the case inasmuch as the interpolation in the printed 
H 
version of First Information Report creates any amount of doubt on the 
f
S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
(N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
245 
credibility of the investigating agency and leads to the inference that 
A 
mischief is perpetuated by the investigating officer. At this point, the 
contention of learned senior counsel for the accused gains momentum 
that investigating agency deliberately tampered the FIR interpolating the 
time so as to create a wrong impression that two incidents of scuffle 
might have occurred. 
20. Another circumstance that raises doubt on the prosecution 
case is also due to the peculiar conduct of PW9 and PW! I who even 
though were aware of the fact that DW2 with serious bodily injl1ries 
B 
was admitted in the same hospital where the deceased was admitted, 
however, failed to perform their duty as spontaneously as they should in 
ordinary course. The Doctor (PW 10) of Government Hospital deposed 
C 
that at 6.05 pm on 15.9.1994 he attended the victim DW2 and noted the 
following injuries (Ext. D2) on his body: 
1. A crush wound 6 x 2 ems on the right side of the head exposing 
the skull was seen. There was bleeding in the said wound. 
2. There was a cut injury 2 x Yi x Y2 cm on the right eyebrow. 
3. A bruise injury was seen on the right jaw. The movement of the 
jaw was less. 
· 
4. A crush injury 8 x 5 cm .was seen on th~ right side of the head. 
There was· bieeding in the said wound .. 
5. A crush injury 5 x 5 cm exposing the skull was seen on theright 
. side of the head. 
6. A cut injury 3 x Y2 cm exposing the skull
was seen on the top of 
the head. 
7. A crush injury 4 x 4 cm exposing the skull was seen on the back 
of the head. 
The Doctor (PWIO) further deposed that X-rays ofDW2's rib, 
head and left leg was also taken and there was a doubt of fracture in his 
D 
E 
F 
leg, hence he was referred to the Coimbatore Government Hospital for 
G 
further treatment. 
21. It appears that police have not taken any interest to shift the 
injured DW2 to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore. If PW9 really 
questioned DW2 in the hospital and prepared his statement (Ext: P 14), it 
H
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
is expedient and obligatory on· his part to take due care, consult the 
attending Doctor and conscientiously shift the injured to the Government 
Hospital at Coimbatore on the advice of Doctor (PW 10). However, 
DW2 denies the same and states that police never came to him and 
there is no reasonable explanation from the prosecution side on this aspect. 
B 
c 
D 
Rather, the statement of PW 11 in this connection is annoying that since 
the accused in the complaint given by DW2 died, he did not make further 
enquiry with regard to the particulars of private hospital and Doctor 
from whom DW2' got treatment. Be that as it may, the injured DW2 got 
himselfadmitted in a private hospital, namely, Devi Hospital at Erode on 
16.9 .1996 where Dr. S. Nataraj (DWI) found the following injuries (Ext. 
DI) on the body ofDW2: 
l. There was a sutured wound 6 cm in length ori the left side of 
the head. 
· 
2. There was a sutured wound 2 cm iri length on the exterior of 
. the left eye. 
· 
3. There was a sutured wound 8 cm in length on the right side of 
the head. 
4. A sutured wound 3 cm in length is seen on the centre of the 
head: 
· 
· 
· 
. 
. 
. 
. 
E 
5. A sutured wound 4 cm iri length is seen tn the back side of the 
h~ad. 
6. The tower part of the left forearm had swelling in it. · 
7. An 8 c.in sutured wound was seen on the front side of the left 
F 
leg swelling was there. Movement of the bone was also there. 
The .Doctor (DWI)
further deposed that X rays of head, left 
forearm and left leg were taken and on observation the ulna bone of his 
left hand was seen to be fractured and both the two bones in the left leg 
was also seen to be fractured. In his opinion, injuries I to 5 
abovementioned are simple in nature but injury Nos. 6 and 7 are grievous 
G 
innature. 
H 
22. Considering the nature of injuries found on the body ofDW2, 
it gives way to a serious doubt in our mind on the credibility of the 
prosecution theory that according to PW9; DW2 affixed his left thumb 
impression on the Complaint (Ext. Pl4) which was registered basing on·
S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
[N. V. RAMANA, J.J 
the FIR (Ext. PlO), as he could not sign due to injuries on his hand. 
Moreover, on an assessment of Ext. PlO and Ext. Pl4 with the evidence 
247 
A 
of DW1 and the wound certificate (Ext. DI), it is crystal clear th.at the 
reason given by the prosecution for taking· thumb jmpression in the 
Complaint is baseless as fracture was found only on the left forearm of 
DW2 andthere was no injury on his right hand with which he could have 
signed being a literate man. In this context, absence of any reasonable 
B 
explanation from the prosecuti.on also assumes significance and 
consequently affects the veracity of the case projected by the prosecution. 
Added to this, there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the 
injuries sustained by DW2 with that of Accident Register (Ext.Pll). 
There are also contradictions as to the correctness of injuries sustained 
C 
by DW2 in Ext. Pl 4, Accident Register (Ext. P 11 ), depositions of PWIO 
(Doctor), DWI (Doctor), PW9 and DW2 himself .. Thus, considering the 
circumstances as a whole, we feel that the investigating agency should 
have acted with more diligence to ensure fulfillment of its solemn duty. 
But the record predominantly shows that the prosecution has adopted a 
D 
very casual and callous approach. 
23. In the light of the statement given by DW2 to PW9 (Ext. 
Pl4), we have come across another glaring defect in the prosecution 
case. As per the prosecution case, DW2,
who has suffered serious 
injuries on his body including head injuries, has given statement to PW9 
(Ext. P 14) in the following terms: 
"Due to the injuries sustained by me, I became unconscious. l 
had been admitted to the Government Hospital Erode for treating 
of my injuries. After gaining consciousness and on enquiry, I came 
to know that my son Kumarasamy, my relative's son Palanisamy, 
my daughter-in-law Vasanthamani, all the three on hearing the 
information about my sustaining injuries in the quarrel went and 
hit Mani @ Subramani who was standing in the place where he 
. hit me, on his head and both of his legs and inflicted seVere injuries 
and that he died on way while he was being carried to the Erode 
Hospital for treatment". 
After going through the above part of the complaint, we are quite 
surprised how a person who fell unconscious owing to serious head 
injuries gives statement to a police officer implicating his own family 
members including son and daughter-in-law. Other deviating feature of 
E 
F 
G 
this testimony is that as per Ext. P 14, DW2 sustained injuries only on his 
H
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 
A left leg and head. But as per prosecution versions and Accident Register 
(Ext. P 11 ), he suffered injuries on various other parts such as jaw, 
mandibles, left forearm, chest etc. Undoubtedly, if DW2 had really made 
the complaint, the injuries mentioned in the Accident Register (Ext.P 11) 
would have found place in the Ext. P 14. The careful evaluation of these_ 
B 
discrepancies strengthens the doubt in our mind and we find force in the 
contention of .the learned senior counsel for the accused/respondents 
that Ext. P 14 is only the oblivious and unduly creation of investigating 
agency to magnify the case of prosecution. Having carefully considered 
this aspect of the matter and due to the doubtful nature of the very 
circumstance, we fire unable to agree with the. case put forth by the 
C prosecution. 
24. It is also the case of the prosecution that upon hearing the 
news of deceased attacking DW2, Accused Nos. I, 2 and 3 rushed to 
"the scene of occurrence and saw DW2 with serious injuries while the 
deceased was found standing at a distance of 80 feet away and they 
D instantaneously attacked him and left the place. The conduct of accused 
persons in fleeing away from the place of offence leaving behind severely 
injured relative raises a serious doubt on the genuineness of prosecution 
case. The fundamental and basic presumption one can derive from the 
circumstance is that when severely wounded DW2 is sitting at the
place 
of occurrence sufferii1g with bodily injuries, as a matter of general human 
E conduct, accused Nos. I and 3; being the own son and daughter-in-law 
of injured DW2, would have run to him for offering first aid and taking 
appropriate steps for his immediate tr.eatment. But, unlike normal human 
behavior, the accused, as per prosecution, rushed to the deceased who 
was still present at the place of offence for one hour after hitting DW2. 
F If the prosecution story is to be believed, the accused after indulging in a 
fight with the deceased, threw their weapons at the place of offence 
and ran away ignoring and leaving the severely injured DW2. Evidently, 
the incident took place on 15.9.1994 and all the accused were arrested 
from a bus-stand on 17.9.1994. On arrest, a blood-stained shirt and 
dhoti worn by A2 was recovered but no recovery was made from Al 
G and A3. It is quite unbelievable that the accused No. 2 from the time of 
occurrence of the incident on 15.9.1994 till his arrest on 17.9.1994, wore 
the same blood-stained shirt and dhoti. If that is so, it is also implausible 
that there were no bloodstains on the clothes of other accused, particularly 
Al, who as per the evidence of PW!, aggressively participated in the 
H crime.
S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
[N. V. RAMANA, J.) 
249. 
25. Analyzing the evidence of PW! (complainant), we doubt the 
A 
plausibility of her depositions in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
Undisputedly, as per postmortem report (Ext.P3), the deceased sustaiiled 
six serious and bleeding injuries on the scalp of his.head. PW! stated 
that she carried her husband in a car keeping his head in her lap from the 
place of occurrence to Government Hospital, Erode. The Accident 
B 
Register (Ext. P12) does not indicate the fact that it was PW! who 
brought the deceased to the hospital. As per record, no bloodstains were 
reported to be found·on her clothes, nor was there any seizure. Her 
conduct in.the situation raises doubt that when her husband with severe 
grievous injuries was struggling for life, she should have first taken him 
to the nearest hospital and complained at the nearest police station. But, 
C 
strangely; PW! neither went to the Chennimalai Government Hospital 
whiCh is.nearest to the place of 9ccurrence and falls on the .way to 
Erode, nor lodged comph.tint at the Chennamalai Police Station. On the· 
contrary,. she opted for a distant Government Hospital and a distant police 
. station. A meticulous examination of her evidence makes it improbable 
D 
and suffice it to say that she is not a reliable witness basing on whose 
evidence, the accused can be convicted. 
26. Thus, applying our dispassionate judicial scrutiny to the facts 
and circumstances
of the case, we feel thatthe prosecution story is not 
trus_tworthy to show the guilt of the accused, The material on record 
portrays huge 'suspicioI1 in OU!: mind and the evidence adducJ;jd on record 
E 
is full of contradi.ctions arid basing on such evidence, it is ncit safe to 
fasten the liability on the acc~sed. it appears to us thatthe investigating 
agency ignored its paramount duty of bringing home the guilt of the 
accused with probable evidence as admissible under law. Rather, the 
investigating agency appears to have spent time and mind on creating 
E 
two occurrences and substantiating the same with the circumstances. 
The prosecution failed. to exonerate itself from the duty of proving the 
guilt of the accused beyonci reasonable doubt, 
27. The defence side has also raised certain other discrepancies 
in the prosecution case, such as the reliability of statement of PW2 
G 
(Kandasamy), injuries sustained by DW2 on left eye-brow, .lower jaw, 
chest, mandible etc .. and disparity in the statements of prosecution 
witnesses, but we feel there is no need to further delve into the matter. · 
28. In our considered view, the High Court has compelling and 
l. substantial reasons to set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by H
250 
SUPREME·COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
the trial Court against the accused and no interference can be made out 
with the same. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal 
is deyoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal dismissed.