If Some Part Of The Statement Is Found To Be Unproved, Entire Testimony Of Witnesses Cannot Be Rejected.

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 24th December 2019  

Postman Vengaisamy & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Ors. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2010

Facts of the Case :

• Baskaran (PW-4) bought goats valuing about Rs.12,000/- from Chinnaperiaiyah (Father of Irulandi – PW-1)  (deceased) and has promised to pay the amount after 20 days. On April 8, 2003, the deceased came to Anaikulam to collect the amount from Baskaran.
• Baskaran (PW-4) sent his wife Rathi (PW-5) to collect the money from the persons to whom he had sold the goats. His wife received the amount but, on her way, she was waylaid by the men belonging to Postman Vengaisami (A-1) and Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) and that they also snatched the money. Baskaran (PW-4), Rathi (PW-5) and deceased Chinnaperiaiyah went to police station to lodge a report but while returning, Baskaran (PW-4), Rathi (PW-5) and deceased Chinnaperiaiyah were attacked by the men belonging to Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) due to which they sustained injuries.
• The deceased Chinnaperiaiyah belonged to Village Kurunthankulam whereas accused belonged to Nathakulam Village and both the villages are coming under the jurisdiction of Veeracholan Police Station.
• After taking treatment, deceased and his son Irulandi (PW-1) went to Anaikulam Village on April 25, 2003 to collect money from Baskaran (PW-4). At that time, Ramar (PW-2), brother-in-law of Baskaran (PW-4), was present. Baskaran (PW-4) told the deceased Chinnaperiaiyah that he will pay the money next day. Therefore, the deceased Chinnaperiaiyah stayed in the house of Ramar (PW-2). It was on April 26, 2003, all the accused armed with weapons surrounded Irulandi (PW-1), Ramar (PW-2) and the deceased Chinnaperiaiyah.
• At that juncture, Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) instigated the other accused to finish off the deceased. In pursuance of the instigation given by Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), apart from himself, Postman Vengaisami (A-1), Rathinettamatiyan (A-9), Kotti @ Kotteswaran (A-10), Neelamegavannan (A-12), Neelamegam @ Valadukai Neelamegam (A-14) and Vellachamy (A-15) attacked the deceased with sword on various parts of his body.
• Irulandi (PW-1) was also attacked by Arjunan (A-13) with sword on his left hand whereby Poovalingam (A-6) hit left shoulder of Ramar (PW-2). Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) went to Veeracholan Police Station at about 9:30 am on April 26, 2003. On the basis of complaint, FIR (Exh. P-13) was lodged for various offences. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) were sent to Thiruchuli Government Hospital for treatment, whereas the FIR was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.
• Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) were medically examined by Dr. Jayakumar (PW-13). After completion of investigation, accused were made to stand trial.
• Before the learned trial court, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including Dr. Jayakumar (PW-13), informant and son of the deceased, Irulandi as PW-1, Ramar as PW-2, Baskaran as PW-4 and his wife, Rathi as PW-5.
•  On the evidence led, the order of conviction was passed convicting, convicted A-1, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-15 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, whereas A-11 was also sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, where as  (A-4) and (A-14) died even before framing of charges by the learned trial court, whereas other accused persons i.e. (A-2), (A-3), (A-5), (A-6), (A-7), (A-8) and (A-13) were sentenced for a period of one or two years for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 324 IPC. Such accused did not file any appeal before the High Court as well. However, in appeal by other accused, the High Court confirmed the sentence imposed, except in respect of Poovalingam (A-6), who was convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
• Later on, the appellants dissatisfied by the judgement passed by the High Court has appealed in the Supreme Court contending that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the High Court. It is also contended that the statements of material witnesses i.e. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) are contradictory, therefore, in the absence of corroboration of the evidence of such witnesses, their statements cannot be relied upon.

Issue:

• If there is an absence of corroboration of the evidence of such witnesses, can their statements cannot be relied upon?

Held:

• 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. Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below are plausible findings in law.
• It was also held that some contradictions arise on account of perception of the witnesses and due to passage of time. But the creditability of the witnesses has not been shaken. Therefore, such witnesses are reliable and credit worthy witnesses. The court also stated that even if some part of the statement is found to be unproved, entire testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected.
• In view thereof, we do not find any error in the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants are granted three months’ time to surrender before the competent court.