2014 (5) TMI 1214 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction & Sentencing under Section 302 IPC

Paulmeli & Anr. Versus State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Insp. of Police

Paulmeli & Anr. Versus State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Insp. of Police - TMI Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentencing.2. Reliability of witness testimony, especially hostile witnesses.3. Identification of accused in darkness.4. Material discrepancies in the evidence.5. Presence of light at the crime scene.6. Promptness of FIR registration.7. Medical evidence and injuries on the deceased and witnesses.8. Acquittal of other accused based on the same evidence.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sentencing:The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, and in default, to undergo further RI for six months. The conviction was based on the evidence provided by Malliga (PW.1) and the medical reports corroborating the injuries inflicted by the appellants.2. Reliability of Witness Testimony, Especially Hostile Witnesses:Malliga (PW.1), the wife of the deceased, named both appellants in her FIR, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and court deposition. Despite being declared hostile, Paulmeli (PW.2) supported the prosecution's case against the appellants. The court emphasized that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto but can be accepted to the extent that it is found dependable.3. Identification of Accused in Darkness:The defense argued that it was impossible to identify the appellants due to complete darkness. However, the court found that there was sufficient light at the crime scene, and Malliga (PW.1) could identify the appellants as they were closely related. The presence of light was corroborated by the evidence of Kumareshan (PW.19), the wireman of the Electricity Board.4. Material Discrepancies in the Evidence:The appellants contended that there were material discrepancies in the manner and number of injuries caused. The court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case, especially when the medical evidence and witness testimonies are consistent with the nature of the injuries.5. Presence of Light at the Crime Scene:The trial court and the High Court both found that there was sufficient light at the crime scene. The evidence included the presence of a street light and light from the house's facet, as confirmed by the observation Mahazar Ex.P-18 and the testimony of Kumareshan (PW.19).6. Promptness of FIR Registration:The court found that the FIR was lodged promptly. The High Court detailed the sequence of events leading to the FIR's registration, including the actions of P.W.21 and P.W.14, and found the explanation for the timing convincing, thereby ruling out any delay.7. Medical Evidence and Injuries on the Deceased and Witnesses:Dr. Prakash Karath (PW.11) conducted the autopsy and detailed the extensive injuries on the deceased. Dr. Maheswaran (PW.22) treated the injured witnesses, Vijayasamy and Paulmeli (PW.2), and documented their injuries. The medical evidence was consistent with the attack described by the witnesses, supporting the prosecution's case.8. Acquittal of Other Accused Based on the Same Evidence:The defense argued that if 15 other accused were acquitted based on the same evidence, the appellants should also be acquitted. The court rejected this argument, stating that the evidence against the appellants was strong and credible. The court emphasized that minor embellishments or exaggerations in witness testimonies do not invalidate the core truth of the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, finding no merit in the appeal. The court ruled that the evidence, despite minor discrepancies, was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed.