Supreme Court of India
George vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 December, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
2024 INSC 974 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5902 of 2021)
GEORGE …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and
order dated 1st November 2019 passed by the Madurai Bench
of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 479 of 2017,
whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against
the judgment and order dated 17th November 2017 in
Sessions Case No. 83 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi (hereinafter, “trial
court”) was partly allowed. The Division Bench of the High
Court upheld the conviction and sentence qua the appellant
Signature Not Verified
insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.13
13:10:51 IST
Reason:
1
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”)
but he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.
3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
appeal are as given below:
3.1 The genesis of the present case is the registration of FIR
No. 224 of 2015 on 16th May 2015 at Police Station
Sathankulam, District Thoothukudi by one Mr. Kovilraj (PW-
1). Written information was received at the said Police Station
at 02:30 hours alleging commission of offence punishable
under Sections 294(b), 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC by the
appellant, Rajarathinam and Albert. It is stated by PW-1 that
he is a Church Member and Choir Master in Immanuel
Church at Ananthapuram. He stated that he was in favour of
Arputharaj in the Diocese Election, due to which the
appellant, who supported the rival faction of Pushparaj
entered into a wordy quarrel with his son (Praveen Kumar)
about a year prior to the day of the incident. It is stated that
the informant (PW-1), his wife Chandra and his son had gone
to Ananthapuram for a Consecration Festival on 15th May
2015. In the intervening night of 15-16th May 2015, at
around 00:30 hours, when the informant’s son was standing
2
in front of the Church and chatting with his friends PraveenImmanuel (PW-2), Melvin Abraham (not examined) and
Gerome (not examined), the three accused persons came and
abused the informant’s son in a filthy language and
questioned him as to how after working against them in the
election, he could come and participate in the festival. It is
stated that informant’s son had replied that they had no
right to question him. Immediately thereafter, the appellant
took out a knife, which he had hid in his hip (pocket), upon
which, the informant’s son ran owing to escape. The
informant’s son was chased by the three of them, however,
he was caught by the accused persons. It is alleged that
while the other two accused persons held the informant’s
son, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of
his neck. The informant’s son was taken to the hospital,
where he was declared dead. Hence, the FIR by PW-1.
3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was
taken over by Vijaya Kumar (Inspector of Police) (PW-19). PW-
19 went to the scene of crime, he prepared the observation
mahazar (Ex. P-18) and a rough sketch (Ex. P-19) and also
recovered the material objects (M.O.-12 and M.O.-13) in the
3
presence of witnesses. He, thereafter, proceeded to the
hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P-21). Based on
the confession of the appellant, the knife (M.O.-1) was
recovered by Nagarajan, Inspector of Police (PW-18), who had
taken over part of the investigation in the absence of PW-19
for a short period. The statements of all the witnesses were
recorded by PW-19 and after completion of investigation, on
17th August 2015, the final report was filed before Judicial
Magistrate, Sathankulam.
3.3 Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, it was committed to the trial court. The trial court
framed charges against the accused persons. To bring home
the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined 19
witnesses, marked 23 documents and 13 material objects. No
witness was examined and no document was marked on the
side of the defence. The trial court, upon consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the
oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and order
dated 17th November 2017 came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt
and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons.
4
Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the trial court held
that he is guilty of offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 341, 302 and 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 294(b) IPC, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section
341 IPC and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo two years simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence
under Section 506(ii) IPC.
3.4 Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons, including the
appellant, filed an appeal before the High Court. Vide
impugned judgment and order, the High Court, partly
allowed the appeal qua the appellant. While sustaining the
conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections
294(b), 341, and 302 IPC, the High Court acquitted the
appellant for the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved
thereby, the appellant filed the present appeal by way of
special leave.
4. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior
5
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri N.R.
Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Tamil Nadu.
5. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Judges of
the Division Bench of the High Court have grossly erred in
convicting the appellant – original accused No.1. He
submitted that, on the basis of the very same evidence of
Kovilraj (PW-1), the learned Judges of the High Court have
disbelieved the testimony of Kovilraj (PW-1) insofar as
accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. However, on the basis of
the same evidence, the appellant has been convicted. It is
therefore submitted that, on this short ground alone, the
appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Shri Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State has opposed the appeal submitting that in
view of the concurrent findings of fact, no interference is
warranted in the present appeal.
7. With the assistance of the parties, we have examined
the material placed on record.
8. As submitted by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior
6
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the conviction
is based solely on the testimony of Kovilraj (PW-1). Kovilraj
(PW-1), in his evidence, stated that a year prior to the
occurrence during Immanuel Church Consecration, accused
No.1 i.e., the appellant herein had beaten up his son
(deceased). He stated that the issue was settled in his village
by compromise, thereafter, there was no issue. It is stated
that on 15th May 2015 at 05:00 o’clock in the evening, he
along with his wife Chandra and his son (Praveen Kumar)
went to Aananthapuram from Nazareth. He stated that about
500 persons had participated in the Consecration Prayer
which began at about 06:30 in the evening and lasted up to
09:00 o’clock in the night. Thereafter, in the Church, there
was a united feast in which he and his family participated
too. He further submitted that, in order to participate in the
early morning 03:00 o’clock prayer, they all stayed in the
Church. He stated that, in the midnight at 12:30 o’clock, his
son (deceased) went out. He saw his son (deceased) standing
and talking with his friends, namely Melvin Abraham,
Praveen Immanuel and Gerome. At that time, the accused
persons hurled abuses at his son (deceased). He stated that
7
the appellant herein threatened his son (deceased) with a
knife and tried to attack the deceased. However, his son
(deceased) escaped and ran directly to the main road. He
stated that the accused persons also ran after his son
(deceased). He also stated that he along with his wife and
friends of his son (deceased) also ran behind them. He stated
that accused Nos.2 and 3 held his son (deceased) by his
hands whereas the appellant herein assaulted him with the
knife. His son (deceased) fell down on the ground. Thereafter,
his son (deceased) was taken to the hospital where he was
declared dead.
9. The High Court has found the evidence of Kovilraj (PW-
1) unreliable insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned
and therefore did not find it safe to convict them and granted
them benefit of doubt. The High Court has observed that the
evidence of Kovilraj (PW-1) insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3
are concerned appears to be unnatural. The High Court has
also observed that, since the incident had taken place at
around 300 metres away from the Church, it is difficult to
believe that Kovilraj (PW-1) could have actually witnessed the
overt act attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3. However,
8
strangely, the High Court, on the basis of very same evidenceof Kovilraj (PW-1), has believed it qua the appellant herein
and confirmed his conviction.
10. In paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, the learned
Judges of the High Court have observed that in the course of
natural events, except the appellant herein (accused No.1),
no one else could have caused the injury to the deceased. In
our considered view, the said finding is based purely on
conjectures and surmises.
11. No doubt that a conviction could be based on the sole
testimony of a witness. Equally the principle that falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian criminal
jurisprudence. However, in the present case, on the basis of
sole testimony of the same witness (PW-1), the appellant
herein has been convicted and the other two accused,
involved in the same incident have been acquitted by giving
them benefit of doubt.
12. Further, in paragraph 23, while disbelieving the
testimony of PW-1 qua accused Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court
has taken note of the fact that the incident occurred 300
metres away from the Church and that could not have
9
enabled PW-1 to have actually witnessed the overt act that is
attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3. However, the appellant
herein involved in the same overt act has been convicted on
the basis of the same testimony of PW-1.
13. It is further to be noted that, in the present case,
Kovilraj (PW-1) is the father of the deceased and is an
interested witness. No doubt that merely because a witness is
an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard the
testimony of such a witness. However, the testimony of such
a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and
circumspection.
14. In the present case, when the High Court comes to a
conclusion that it is difficult to believe that Kovilraj (PW-1)
could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by
him and granted benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the
conviction of accused No.1 on the basis of the evidence of the
very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and
surmises, in our view, is not permissible.
15. Insofar as the other circumstance with regard to seizure
of knife as could be found from the evidence of Inspector of
Police, the testimony of PW-18 would show that the recovery
10
was made from an open place accessible to one and all. As
such, we are of the considered opinion that only on the basis
of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could
not have been based.
16. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High
Court has grossly erred in convicting the appellant while
giving benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3.
17. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 1st
November 2019 passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside; and
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled
against him and is directed to be released forthwith if
not required in any other case.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…………………………J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 13, 2024.
11