LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the testimonies of injured witnesses can be relied upon for conviction in a murder case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Postman Vengaisamy & Ors. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police & Ors.
Judgment Date: 24 July 2019
Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2019
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2010
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when based on the testimony of witnesses who are related to the victim and have sustained injuries during the incident? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a violent attack resulting in death and injuries. The Court examined the reliability of witness testimonies and the application of the principle of common intention in a criminal act. This judgment clarifies the evidentiary standards required for convictions in cases involving multiple accused and violent crimes.
Case Background
The case revolves around a fatal attack on Chinnaperiaiyah, who was killed on April 26, 2003. The events leading up to the murder began on April 8, 2003, when Chinnaperiaiyah went to collect money from Baskaran (PW-4) for goats he had sold. Baskaran’s wife, Rathi (PW-5), was waylaid and robbed of the money she had collected. When Chinnaperiaiyah, Baskaran, and Rathi went to the police station to report the incident, they were attacked by men associated with Thalaiyaripandi (A-11).
On April 25, 2003, Chinnaperiaiyah and his son, Irulandi (PW-1), returned to Anaikulam Village to collect the money from Baskaran (PW-4). They were told to come back the next day. On April 26, 2003, a group of armed men, including the accused, surrounded Chinnaperiaiyah, Irulandi, and Ramar (PW-2), who was Baskaran’s brother-in-law. Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) instigated the others to attack Chinnaperiaiyah, which led to his death. Irulandi and Ramar also sustained injuries during the attack.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 8, 2003 | Chinnaperiaiyah goes to collect money from Baskaran; Rathi is robbed; Chinnaperiaiyah, Baskaran, and Rathi are attacked. |
| April 25, 2003 | Chinnaperiaiyah and Irulandi go to Anaikulam to collect money; stay at Ramar’s house. |
| April 26, 2003 | Chinnaperiaiyah is fatally attacked; Irulandi and Ramar are injured; FIR is lodged. |
Course of Proceedings
The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudunagar District at Srivilliputtur, convicted six of the fifteen accused, including Postman Vengaisamy (A-1), Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), and Vellachamy (A-15), for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A-11 was also convicted under Section 506 (Part II) of the IPC. Other accused were convicted for offences under Sections 342 and 324 of the IPC.
The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, except for Poovalingam (A-6), whose conviction was altered to Section 324 of the IPC. The other accused who were convicted under Sections 342 and 324 of the IPC did not appeal.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the concept of common object, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, every person who was a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offense.
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for wrongful confinement.
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the injured witnesses, Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2), were introduced by the prosecution and their injuries were not inflicted by the accused. They also contended that all prosecution witnesses were interested parties and their testimonies should not be believed. The appellants further argued that the statements of Irulandi and Ramar were contradictory, lacking corroboration, and therefore unreliable.
The appellants relied on Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 12 SCC 389] to argue that the statements of Irulandi and Ramar should not be split to benefit some co-accused while maintaining the conviction of others. They also cited Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Wagh & Ors. [(2017) 3 SCC 261], arguing that the prosecution failed to prove a common object to commit murder. Additionally, they referred to Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2019) 5 SCC 67], stating that caution should be exercised when examining the statements of witnesses whose part statements are untruthful.
The prosecution argued that the testimonies of the injured witnesses were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the motive for the attack was established by the prior incident on April 8, 2003.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Witnesses | Injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were introduced by the prosecution. | Appellants |
| Injuries were not inflicted by the accused. | Appellants | |
| Witnesses are interested parties and their testimonies are unreliable. | Appellants | |
| Contradictions in Testimony | Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are contradictory and lack corroboration. | Appellants |
| Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. | Prosecution | |
| Common Object | Prosecution failed to prove a common object to commit murder. | Appellants |
| Common object is inferred from weapons used and violent nature of attack. | Prosecution | |
| Splitting of Testimony | Statements cannot be split to benefit some accused while convicting others. | Appellants |
| Credibility of witnesses is not shaken. | Prosecution |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the issues it addressed can be summarized as follows:
- Whether the testimonies of the injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) are reliable and credible.
- Whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven the common object of the unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Whether the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) applies to the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Reliability of Injured Witnesses | The Court found the testimonies of Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) to be credible, noting that their statements were corroborated by medical evidence and the lengthy cross-examination did not undermine their credibility. |
| Common Object under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court inferred the common object to commit murder from the exhortation of Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), the weapons used, and the violent nature of the attack, as well as the prior incident on April 8, 2003. |
| Applicability of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” | The Court reiterated that the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India and that the entire testimony of a witness cannot be rejected even if some part is found to be untruthful. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 12 SCC 389] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The Court distinguished this case, stating that the credibility of the witnesses was not doubted in the present case, unlike in Ram Laxman, where the High Court disbelieved the witness in respect of some accused but believed them in respect of others. |
| Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Wagh & Ors. [(2017) 3 SCC 261] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The Court distinguished this case, stating that in Najabhai, the court was examining an acquittal order where the common object of murder was not proven, whereas in the present case, the common object was inferred from the exhortation and the use of weapons. |
| Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2019) 5 SCC 67] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The Court reiterated that the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India and that the entire testimony of a witness cannot be rejected even if some part is found to be untruthful. |
| Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Applied | The Court applied this section to convict the accused for rioting with deadly weapons. |
| Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Applied | The Court applied this section to hold all members of the unlawful assembly guilty of the offense committed in furtherance of the common object. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Applied | The Court applied this section to convict the accused for murder. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Injured witnesses were introduced and their injuries were not caused by the accused. | Rejected. The Court found the testimonies of the injured witnesses credible and corroborated by medical evidence. |
| Prosecution witnesses are interested parties and their testimonies are unreliable. | Rejected. The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the witnesses despite their relationship with the victim. |
| Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are contradictory and lack corroboration. | Rejected. The Court found that any contradictions were minor and did not affect the credibility of the witnesses, and their testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence. |
| Prosecution failed to prove a common object to commit murder. | Rejected. The Court inferred the common object from the exhortation of A-11, the weapons used, and the violent nature of the attack, as well as the prior incident. |
| Statements cannot be split to benefit some accused while convicting others. | Rejected. The Court found that the credibility of the witnesses was not shaken, unlike in the case of Ram Laxman. |
Authorities and their use:
- Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 12 SCC 389]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the credibility of the witnesses was not doubted in the present case.
- Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Wagh & Ors. [(2017) 3 SCC 261]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that in Najabhai, the court was examining an acquittal order where the common object of murder was not proven, whereas in the present case, the common object was inferred.
- Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2019) 5 SCC 67]*: The Court reiterated that the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible testimonies of the injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2), which were corroborated by medical evidence. The Court also took into account the motive for the attack, which was established by the prior incident on April 8, 2003. The Court emphasized the violent nature of the attack and the weapons used, which further supported the inference of a common object to commit murder.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Credibility of Injured Witnesses | 40% |
| Medical Evidence Corroboration | 25% |
| Motive from Prior Incident | 20% |
| Violent Nature of Attack | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that the witnesses were introduced, stating that the cross-examination did not lead to such an inference. The medical evidence corroborated the oral testimony of the witnesses. The Court also found that the motive for the attack was established by the incident on April 8, 2003.
The Court stated, “The oral testimony of material witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) is corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the deceased is made out from the incident which happened on April 8, 2003.”
The Court also clarified that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India and that even if some part of a witness’s statement is found to be untrue, the entire testimony cannot be rejected.
The Court stated, “In Mahendran’s case, reiterating the well-established principle that follows “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and is not a rule of law. Therefore, even if some part of the statement is found to be unproved, entire testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected.”
The Court concluded that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the intent to take the life of Chinnaperiaiyah.
The Court stated, “Since there is a history of earlier attack on the deceased on April 8, 2003, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take life of Chinnaperiaiyah.”
Key Takeaways
- The testimonies of injured witnesses can be relied upon if they are consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence.
- The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India, and the entire testimony of a witness cannot be rejected solely based on minor inconsistencies.
- A common object to commit murder can be inferred from the exhortation of the accused, the weapons used, the violent nature of the attack, and the prior history of conflict.
Directions
The appellants were granted three months’ time to surrender before the competent court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimonies of injured witnesses, when corroborated by medical evidence and not significantly contradicted, can be relied upon for conviction. The Court also reiterated that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. This judgment reinforces the evidentiary standards in criminal cases involving multiple accused and violent acts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court. The Court found the testimonies of the injured witnesses to be credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court also inferred the common object to commit murder based on the circumstances of the attack and the prior history of conflict. This judgment reinforces the legal principles regarding the reliability of witness testimonies and the application of common intention in criminal cases.