The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of five individuals for the brutal murder of a school teacher in 2007, dismissing appeals against the Madras High Court’s judgment which had reversed the trial court’s acquittal. The Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized that courts must adopt a “nuanced approach” when evaluating witness testimonies, noting that minor discrepancies or “embroidery” to the prosecution story are insufficient grounds to discard credible evidence if a “ring of truth” remains.
The primary legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the findings of the Sessions Court, which had acquitted the accused based on alleged contradictions in witness statements and medical evidence.
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, dismissing the appeals filed by Murugesan @ Shanmugasundaram (A-1), Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti (A-2), Palavesaraj @ Palavesamuthu (A-3), Kulasekarapandian (A-4), and Biledy Ganesan @ Selvaganesan (A-10). The Court confirmed their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 148, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case was that on July 12, 2007, the victim, a teacher, was waylaid while returning home from school on his motorcycle. The accused, driven by prior enmity arising from land disputes, allegedly intercepted him using a “ninja chain” and attacked him indiscriminately with sickles. The victim died on the spot.
The trial court, in its judgment dated September 1, 2009, acquitted all accused, citing discrepancies in the prosecution’s version. However, on appeal by the victim’s widow (PW-8), the Madras High Court, vide judgment dated December 7, 2021, reversed the acquittal of five accused (A-1 to A-4 and A-10) and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while maintaining the acquittal of the others.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants’ Submissions: Counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court erred in overturning the “well-reasoned” acquittal by the trial court. Key contentions included:
- Material Contradictions: The defence argued that while the prosecution claimed the body was rolled into a plantain grove, medical evidence showed no scratch marks consistent with being dragged through the grove’s thorny fence.
- Interested Witnesses: It was submitted that the main eye-witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 (the victim’s brother-in-law and brother), were interested parties whose testimonies were mutually inconsistent.
- Delay in FIR: The defence highlighted a delay of nearly 15 hours in the FIR reaching the Judicial Magistrate, suggesting manipulation.
- A-10’s Implication: Senior Counsel for A-10 argued that he was not named in the initial FIR and was implicated later as an afterthought.
The Respondents’ Submissions: Representing the victim’s widow, Senior Counsel Ms. N.S. Nappinai argued that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence. She submitted:
- Corroboration: The ocular testimony of PWs 1 and 2 regarding specific overt acts was fully corroborated by the post-mortem report (Ext. P-25), which recorded 11 distinct injuries.
- Motive: Prior FIRs regarding land disputes established a clear motive.
- Prompt Complaint: The complaint was lodged promptly, and the delay in forwarding the FIR was due to the Magistrate’s unavailability, which was explained by the Head Constable (PW-26).
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of the principles governing the appreciation of ocular evidence, particularly when witnesses turn hostile or exaggerate.
On Witness Testimony: The Bench observed that in the Indian context, a “nuanced approach is essential.” Citing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Singh (1988), the Court reiterated:
“It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses.”
The Court further noted:
“Witnesses are prone to forget events and things; they are likely to exaggerate or even have motives to change their story… As this Court said in Anil Singh (supra), the witnesses add embroidery to the prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved.”
On the Merits of the Case:
- Consistency: The Court found the versions of PWs 1 and 2 consistent regarding the interception of the victim by A-3 using a ninja chain and the subsequent fatal attack.
- Medical Corroboration: The Court noted that the 11 injuries recorded in the post-mortem report “almost nearly match” the overt acts described by the eye-witnesses. Specifically, the severance of the victim’s wrist and injuries to the shoulders attributed to A-10 were corroborated by the medical opinion of Dr. PW-28.
- The “Embroidery”: Addressing the defence’s argument about the body being rolled into the grove, the Court acknowledged the discrepancy between the eye-witness account and the physical evidence found by the widow (PW-8), who saw the body on the road. However, the Court termed this discrepancy as “embroidery” which did not justify “throwing the prosecution case overboard.”
- A-10’s Involvement: The Court rejected the plea regarding A-10’s non-inclusion in the initial FIR, noting he was named the very next day, and the specific injuries attributed to him (shoulder blows) were consistent with medical findings.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had committed no error in reversing the acquittal. The Bench held:
“There is merit in the argument… that premeditated murder with common intention has been irrefutably established by the prosecution based on the evidence on record and the findings returned by the High Court… point unerringly towards the guilt of the appellants.”
Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Anr. (and connected appeals)
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2022 Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
