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

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the accused persons had committed the murder of Manicka Nadar (hereinafter referred to as the D1) and Selvaraj (hereinafter referred to as thein retaliation of the murder of one Md. Kasim, of which deceased Manicka Nadar was a suspect. It was alleged that the deceased Manicka Nadar was the state Executive member of the B.J.P. and the deceased Selvaraj was the District Convener of the B.J.P. Dindigul and they were Hindu activists. It so happened that on October 10, 1994, the Hindu Munnani Leader Rajagopalan was brutally murdered at Madurai and on the same day evening at 6.00 p.m., one Mohammed Kasim, a Muslim Hazarath was brutally murdered by Hindu fanatics nearhouse at Dindigul. The Investigating Officer in Mohammed Kasims case had takento the police station for enquiry in that case but let him go after finding that he was not involved in that occurrence. But newspaper carried news as ifwas arrested in that case.3. In order to take revenge, on January 10, 1997 at about 21.30 hours, A1 to A8 and the deceased accused Rifayudden formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of murderingat Thiruvalluvar Salai, 11th Cross Road Junction, Dindigul. A2 to A8 were armed with lethal weapons, i.e., Vettaruval and Knives and caused the death of Manicka Nadar and Selvaraj.4. As per the prosecution, P.W. 1 (not animmediately after knowing the occurrence went to the spot and ascertained the death and then he went to the police station and lodged the complaint Ex. P.1. According to the Prosecution, P.Ws. 2 to 4 is theaja lodged the complaint (Ex. P.1), stating that P.W.who is an auto driver and who knew the deceased Manicka Nadar and Selvaraj and also A1, took his customers at 09.30 p.m., on January 10, 1997 from Dindigul Bus Stand and dropped them at Raja Rajeswari Hospital. His customers requested him to wait. Therefore, he parked his auto some distance from the hospital gate. At that time, one Srinivasa Perumal and P.W. 3Saravanan came along with Bus Stand road and were standing near the flower market. Then, both of them conversing with each other crossed the road and went to the opposite place near the sugar cane crusher. Therewho was an employee ofwas standing with a T.V.S. Moped. Next to him, three persons were talking to him. They looked like college students about 20 to 25 years of age. One of them was smoking a cigarette. One of the other three pulled out something from behind. The object was wrapped in a newspaper and it was a sword. Another person drew out an object from his right waist and flung it southwards. That was a knife. Then,and the three men went and stood by the fence, at the place nearhouse. At that time,came in his Avanti motor cycle andsat on the pillion seat. Whenwere approaching the place where1 gave a signal to the three persons with his right hand. Immediately, the person, who was smoking the cigarette stoppedwho was driving the motor cycle, by holding his left shoulder and uttered the following threatening words "These are the B.J.P. men; cut them, stab them...." Thereupon, the other two started attacking2. Four persons came from north with knife and arrival and they also attacked2. An auto driver was standing in front of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 moved away. Later, on enquiry P.W. 2 learnt that the said auto driver was Kasilla. One amongst the group showed the knife to the auto driver and asked him to run away. Immediately, Kasilla took his auto and drove away towards South. The assailants ran eastwards through the old flower market side. Another person came nearhouse and joined the group of assailants and ran away. Immediately, P.W. 2 went and informed P.W. 1. Both of them came back to the scene of occurrence in 10 minutes. When they came back,wife, P.W. 16Kelaiselvi was weeping there.were lying down in a pool of blood. There was a huge crowd. Near the transformer,were lying dead. There were many blood stained wounds on them. P.W. 2 being an auto driver, he went in P.W. 2s auto to Dindigul Town North Police Station and there, he gave the written complaint (EX. P.1). He sent away P.W. 2 since he was agitated. The names and particulars of the accused were not mentioned in the FIR.5. P.W. 32 took up the investigation and went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation Mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch Ex. P26. He requested the Finger Print Expert and the PhotographerL. Sugumaran (P.W. 25) to go to the scene of occurrence where sniffer dog was also taken. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with P.W. 1. He prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex. P. 18; and Rough Sketch (Ex. P.26). P.W. 25 the Photographer, took photos at the scene of occurrence. The photos were marked as Ex. P. 19 series. At about 12.30 a.m., in the presence of V.R.O.R. Durairaj (P.W. 26), he recovered M.Os. 20 to 30 under Ex. P. 19. He conducted the Inquest over the dead body ofbetween 01.20 a.m. and 03.00 a.m. and the Inquest Report which is Ex. P.27. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 16 and one Narayanasamy. He conducted the Inquest on the dead body ofbetween 03.00 a.m. and 05.00 a.m. The Inquest Report is Ex. P.28. During the Inquest, he recorded the statement of P.W. 15Shanthi, wife ofand others. In order to ascertain the real cause of death, he sent the dead body ofthrough P.W. 24Bose P.C., and P.W. 12Sundaram, Constable respectively along with requisitions in Exs. P.12 and 13 P.W. 9Dr. Anandan, who was the Doctor on duty in the Government Hospital received Ex. P.12 and conducted the autopsy on the dead body ofbetween 08.30 a.m., and 10.30 a.m. on January 11, 1997. Ex. P13 is theCertificate in respect ofOn receipt of Ex. P.14, requisition memo, P.W. 9 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of D15 is thee in respect ofThe injuries noticed by P.W. 9, theDoctor in respect ofas follows:1. Ahorizontal incised wound extending from the upper fermium of the upper lip to the right earlobe measuring about 15x2x2cms, cutting the facial muscles and exposing the oral cavity.2. An oblique incised wound starting from the ala of the right nose and joining the injury No. 1 measuring about 6x1x1 cm., exposing the muscles of the face.3. A punctured wound with clear cut margin extending from the right lateral, aspect of the neck at the level of Hyoid bone passing through the neck horizontally into the opposite side of the neck measuring about right side 3x1 cms and left side 2x1 cms.On dissection the carotid vessel, trachea above the level of thyroid cartilage are cut and muscle of the neck of the right side is cut.4. An elliptical punctured wound measuring about 3x1 cm overlying the 4th intercostals space 2 cm away from the Iternum of the right side of the chest passing through thoracic cavity.5. A punctured elliptical wound measuring about 4x1 cm passing through the thoracic cavity over laying the 6TM intercostals apace on the anterior axillaries line of the left side passing into thoracic cavity.6. A punctured elliptical wound just below the axillaries fold overlying the 7th intercostals apace of the left side cheat measuring about 4x1 cms. Wound passes through the thoracic cavity.On opening the toraz 700 ml of clotted bleed found on the both pleural cavity. The pleura are cut corresponding to the injury Nos. 3, 5 and 6.The middle lobe of the Highs lung is punctured measuring about 2.5x1x3 cms cutting the lung tissue. This lung injury corresponds to the external injury No. 4. The lower lob (left) lung is punctured on the lateral aspect measuring about 3.5x1x1 cms. This injury corresponds to the Injury No. 5.A punctured wound over the lateral and posterior aspect of the lower lobe of the left lung measuring about 3.5x1x3 cms this injury corresponds to the Injury No. 6.7. An incised wound starting from the back of the neck in theextending to the lateral aspect of the left side of neck cutting the muscles and tissues measuring about 10x2x1 cms. On exploration the underlying muscles and tissues alone are cut.8. An elliptical punctured wound below the costal margin on the anterior axillaries line obliquely placed with direction upwards, measuring about 5x2 cms in the right side. The momentum is protruding through the wound. On dissection the peritoneal cavity contains 300 ml of clotted blood. The underlying peritoneum and muscles are cut. On dissection, the liver right lobe is found cut on the inferior surface up to middle of the right lobe measuring about 3x1.5x6 cms.9. An elliptical punctured wound overlying the abdomen 5 cm above the umbilicus in the midline measuring about 5x2 cms. Small intestine and omentoim protruding through the wound Peritoneum and muscles are cut. No visceral injury corresponding to this injury.10. An elliptical incised wound overlying the right loin region just above the right illiac crest measuring about 3x1x2 cms. On dissection, no deeper structure is cut except the muscles and tissues.11. An elliptical incised wound 7 cm above th3e iliac crest on the left loin measuring about 3x2x2 cms. On dissection, no deeper tissue is cut except muscles and underlying tissue.12. An incised wound over or reliance of the right hand measuring about 2x^xH cms. Making cut of the muscles and tissue13. An incised wound overlying the left hand cutting the muscles into two halves in between the II and III space measuring about 6x1x1 cm.14. An elliptical oblique incised wound on the anterior aspect; of the right upper arm overlying the deltoid muscle measuring 2x1/2 cms making only tissue and muscle.15. An oblique elliptical incised wound 2 cm below the Injury No. 14 measuring about 2x1/2x1 cms Only underlying muscles are cut on exploration.16. The pinna of the left ear is cut into 2 halves measuring 3x1/2x1/4 cms vertically.17. The abrasions each measuring about 6x5 cms on the lateral aspect of the middle of the left arm.The opinion of the Doctor as to the cause of death is as follows:"The deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to carotid vessels and vital organs lungs and liver."The injuries noticed by ther in respect of. An oblique incised wound overlying theanterior aspect of need in the midline just below the thyroid cartilage measuring about 5x2x3 cms. Exposing the trachea2. An elliptical incised wound 5 cm below the angle of mandible left side measuring about 5x2x3 cms. Cutting the major vessels common carotid vessels and jugular veins of left side of the neck the blood suffused into the surrounding tissues of injury.An oblique incised wound overlying thenape of neck on the right sidle 5 cm below the occipital protuberance measuring about 4k2x2 cms underlying the muscles and tissues were cut.4. An elliptical p0uncuted wound overlying the areola of the nipple on the right side on the 4"1 intercostals space measuring about 5x2xpasses inside the thoracic cavity. On dissection the wound enters vertically into the middle lobe of the anterior surface of the right lung. The parietal pleura and the thoracic muscles are cut. The pleural cavity contains 500 ml of clotted blood. The injury on the lung measures about 4x1x5 cum.5. An incised wound overlying the anterior fold of the auxiliary and the lateral aspect of the right side of the chest wall measuring about 12 cmsx5x3 cms with clear cut margins, cutting the muscles on the anterior auxiliary fold and no other deeper structures are involved.6. An elliptical horizontal punctured wound below the inferior angle of the scapula the overlying 8th intercostals space on the hack measuring about 4x1.5xpasses internally. Ok dissection the posterior surface of the lower lobe of the right lung measuring about 3x1x5 cms. Muscles and pleura and cooer thorn are cut.An oblique incised wound overlying themedial aspect of the right leg 2 cm below the patella measuring about 5x1x1 depth. The opinion of the Doctor as to the cause of the death is as follows:"The deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due To the injuries to the neck vessels and lung."6. P.W. 12, the first grade constable at Dindigul Town North Police Station at the relevant point of time, who handed over the body ofalong with the requisition to the Doctor, handed over the wearing apparels of(M.Os. 10 to 13) to P.W. 32. P.W. 23, the Head Constable at Dindigul Town North Police Station, who handed over the wearing apparels of(M .Os. 15 to 18) to P.W. 32.7. P.W. 32 continued the investigation and recorded the statement of some more witnesses, at 10.00 a.m., he recovered the wearing apparels of(M.Os. 15 to 18) and the wearing apparels of(M.Os. 10 to 13). He also recorded the statement ofDoctor (P.W. 9).8. P.W. 32 also recovered an umbrella, leather chapels, rubber chapels, knife etc. P.W. 32 held inquest over the dead body of the Selvaraj in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses between 3.00 to 5.00 a.m. and prepared the inquest report. He sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination with the requisitions through P.W. 12 Sundaram and P.W. 24 Bose the constables.9. On January 16, 1997, P.W. 32 handed over the investigation to P.W. 33 Mahendran, Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D. P.W. 33 took up further investigation in this case on January 17, 1997. On January 25, 1997, he arrested3 Mohammed Subair who was in custody in Cr. No. 151/98 of Coimbatore Bazaar Police Station was brought on P.T. Warrant and remanded to judicial custody in this case on March 01, 1999.10. On October 12, 1999, the investigation was handed over toHe examined P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and recorded their further statements. He also examined P.W. 4 and other witnesses and recorded their further statements.11. P.W. 35 took up further investigation on March 17, 2001.who was in custody in Kodangaiyur Police Station, case was brought on P.T. Warrant and remanded to judicial custody on the requisition of the Investigating Officer. He was taken into police custody on April 05, 2001. After completing the investigation, he laidagainst the accusedA1 to A8 andone Rifayudden (deceased accused).12. The charges were framed by the Trial Court for the offences under Section 120 as against the Accused Nos. 1 to 8; under Section 147 IPC as against A1; under Section 148 IPC as against A2 to A8; under Section 341 IPC as against A2 to A4; under Section 302 (2 counts) IPC as against A2, A4, A5 to A8 and under Section 302 R/w. 149 IPC as (2 counts) against A1 and A3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecuting agency examined 35 witnesses and marked 4 exhibits and 30 material objects on their side.13. It may be mentioned at this stage that investigation was handed over to PW32 on the instruction of Deputy General of Police. Whentook up further investigation on January 17, 1997, he continued the same till October 12, 1999. On the basis of the statement recorded from Kasilla, he learnt thatwas involved in the murder and Kasilla also indentifiedOn January 18, 1997, P.W. 3Soundarajan and P.W. 62, A4. On January 19, 1997, he recorded the statement of P.W. 11V. Krishnan. On January 20, 1997, he recorded the statement of P.W. 5Malleswaran, who identifiedOn January 25, 1997 at about 10.30 p.m., he arrestedin the presence of witnesses at his residence. Then, on January 26, 1997, he remanded him to judicial custody. On February 12, 1997, he gave a requisition to send the articles for chemical analysis. P.W. 29Kasthuri is the head clerk through whom the recovered objects were sent for chemical analysis. The Chemical Analysis Report is Ex. F.22 and the Serological Report is Ex. P.23. When P.W. 33 learnt thathad been arrested in connection with Crime No. 381 of 1997 on the file of Kodungaiyur Police Station, he obtained P.T. warrant from learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul and remandedin this caseHe gave a requisition to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for conducting Test Identification Parade. He tookunder police custody from May 15, 1997 to May 19, 1997. P.W. 7P. Kulamani is the Judicial Magistrate No. III at the relevant: point of time. He issued orders for conducting test identificationin respect ofon April 07, 1997. The test identification parade is Ex. P.3. P.W. 8L. Thamburaj, Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of P. Ws. 2, 3, Srinivasa Perumal, P.W. 4 and one Natarajan under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. and they are Exs. P.4 to P.8. He asked to conduct the test identification parade with regard to A6 andBut, the accused refused to participate in the test identification parade on the ground of delay of four years and the publicity given in the newspapers. The request for test identification parade is Ex. P. 10 and the Report is Ex. P.11 series. When P.W. 33 learnt thatwas remanded in connection with Crime No. 151 of 1998 on the file of Coimbatore Bazaar Police Station, he obtained P.T. warrant from the Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Dindigul and remandedOn April 09, 1999, he tookunder police custody and recorded his statements. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 identifiedOn April 20, 1999, he recorded the statement of other witnesses and concluded the investigation and filed theagainst the accusedon July 30, 1999.14. It may also be recorded at this stage that P.W. 3Soundarajan belongs to Vellodu village. He is an L.I.C. agent. His statement is that he knew2. He had gone to Dindigul Bazaar in the morning on January 10, 1997 to meet P.W. 11, who is his friend. P.W. 11, V. Krishnan asked P.W. 3 if he knew any good doctor, for treatment of his stomach ailment. P.W. 3 told him that he had work in the morning and asked P.W. 11 to come near Raja Rajeswari Hospital at about 09.30 p.m. At 09.00 p.m., on a cycle, he was proceeding from Railway Station road through Thiruvalluvar Salai to reach the Raja Rajeswari Hospital. There, he sawthe employee of

Court's reasoning:
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.