Page 1

1

                            REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 707  OF  2007

Edward                                                …Appellant  :Versus:

Inspector  of  Police,  Aandimadam  Police  Station  ...Respondent

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 774  OF  2007

Periyanagayasamy and Ors.             ….Appellants     :Versus:

Inspector of Police, Aandimadam Police Station ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These  appeals  have  been  filed  by  accused  persons  

against  the judgment and order  dated 16.3.2006 passed by  

the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1540 of 2002 by  

which the High Court has dismissed the appeal  filed by the  

appellants.  The  facts  of  the  case  as  narrated  by  the  

prosecution are briefly stated as under:

Page 2

2

2. The deceased Michaelraj and the accused persons were  

residents  of  the  same  Village  in  Taluk  Udayarapalayam  in  

District  Perambalur.  There  was  a  land  dispute  between  

Michaelraj and the accused persons on account of which there  

was enmity between them.  Originally, the grandmother of the  

deceased Michaelraj  executed a settlement deed in favor of  

Michaelraj  which  was  subsequently  cancelled.  Thereafter,  a  

portion of the property was executed in favor of the appellant.  

Despite the settlement deed,  the appellant claimed that his  

possession of property was disturbed by the deceased and his  

relatives.  Therefore,  the  appellant  filed  a  suit  against  the  

deceased and his relatives. The appellant further claimed that  

even though interim orders were passed in the suit,  Michaelraj  

and  his  relatives  did  not  allow  the  appellant   to  enjoy  his  

possession of the property.

3. On  10.12.1997  at  around  7:30  p.m.,  when  Michaelraj  

along with his friend John Paul was returning from the house of  

his  father-in-law,  the  appellant  and  other  accused  persons  

attacked  him  with  deadly  weapons.  This  occurrence  was  

witnessed by John Paul  (PW-1)  and Anthoni  Raj  (PW-3).  The

Page 3

3

deceased sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital in a  

serious condition.  In the meantime, PW-1 went to the Police  

Station and filed an FIR to PW-11. Subsequently, a case was  

registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 of the  

Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). On 14.12.1997, Michaelraj died at  

the  hospital  and  thereafter  the  inspector  of  police  (PW-12)  

altered the case into one under Section 302 of the IPC. PW-12  

filed an application seeking police custody from the Court. On  

police  custody,  he  obtained  confession  from  the  appellant,  

which led to  the recovery of  weapons,  which were  sent  for  

chemical examination. Thereafter, PW-14 took up the matter  

from  PW-12  and  investigated  the  case  further  and  filed  a  

charge-sheet for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

4. The matter came up before the Trial  Court,  which after  

going through the evidence provided by the sole-eyewitness  

PW-3, concluded that the case of prosecution is proved beyond  

doubt and thereby convicted the accused under Sections 148,  

149, 302 & 341 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial  

Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Madras High  

Court.  The  High  Court  vide  its  judgment  and  order  dated

Page 4

4

16.3.2006,  partly  allowed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  accused  

persons, convicted them under Section 304 Part II of IPC and  

sentenced  them  to  rigorous  imprisonment  for  five  years,  

stating  that  the  doctor  who  treated  the  deceased  was  not  

examined  and  the  documents  regarding  the  nature  of  

treatment were not produced. Aggrieved by the said judgment  

and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court,  the  sole  appellant  is  

before us.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf  

of the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has  

relied on the case of State of Orissa v. Brahamananda Nanda,  

(1976) 4 SCC 288, in which the entire case of the prosecution  

rested on the oral evidence provided by an eye-witness, which  

was rejected by the High Court and simultaneously dismissed  

by this Court. The counsel for the appellant also relied on the  

case of  State of  Karnataka v.  Venkatesh and others,  (1992)  

Suppl.1 SCC 539, in which it has been held by this Court that in  

absence  of  reliable  testimony  and  evidence,  guilt  of  the  

accused  cannot  be  proved.  The  learned  counsel  contended  

that  in  the  present  case,  there  was  no  reliable  evidence  

adduced  by  PW-3  as  he  was  the  only  witness  providing

Page 5

5

evidence against the accused and it can be further seen that  

PW-1 had turned hostile.  

6. Learned counsel  for  the  appellant  further  relied on the  

case  of  Harish  Kumar  v.  State  Delhi  Administration,  (1994)  

Suppl. 1 SCC 462, in which it has been held by this Court that  

it was not given proper materials to examine the nature of the  

treatment given to the deceased. The counsel stated that in  

the  present  case,  the  nature  of  treatment  given  to  the  

deceased  by  the  doctors  had  not  been  recorded  and  the  

deceased died four days after the occurrence of the incident.  

So it cannot be concluded that the deceased died exclusively  

due to the injuries.  

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand,  

supported the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.

8. With regard to the contention of the counsel for appellant  

where  he  has  stated  that  the  single  eye-witness  is  inimical  

towards the accused, in the case of  Dalip Singh and Ors. v.   

State of Punjab,  (1954) 1 SCR 145, it has been held by this  

Court  that,  it  is  true when feelings run high and there is  a

Page 6

6

personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to drag in an  

innocent person against whom the witness has a grudge but  

foundation must be laid  for  such a criticism and each case  

must be judged and governed on its own facts. In this case we  

do not  see any evidence for  the eye-witness to  be inimical  

towards the accused.

9. In  the  case  of  Bipin  Kumar  Mondal  v.  State  of  West   

Bengal,  (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)  150 = (2010) 12 SCC 91, it  has  

been held by this Court that there is no legal impediment in  

convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness  

provided he is wholly reliable. In the present case there is no  

ground to  doubt  the  reliability  of  the  evidence provided by  

PW-3.

10. Even if there is a difference between ocular and medical  

evidence,  it  is  clear  from  the  facts  that  the  accused  were  

present  there  with  the  common  intention  to  attack  the  

deceased.  Thus,  a  difference  between  ocular  and  medical  

evidence will not stand any ground in acquitting the accused in  

the present case.

Page 7

7

11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered  

opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case do not  

warrant any interference by us in the matter. The appeals lack  

merit and are accordingly dismissed.

….....….……………………J (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)

….....…..…………………..J (R.K. Agrawal)

New Delhi; March 11, 2015.

Page 8

8

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.12               SECTION IIA (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  707/2007 EDWARD                                             Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AANDIMADAM P.S.               Respondent(s)

WITH Crl.A. No. 774/2007

 Date : 11/03/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement  

of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.                   Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv.                       

Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv.                   Ms. Promila, Adv.

Mr. Karthik Ashok, Adv. For Respondent(s)  Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv.

Ms. J. Janani, Adv. Mr. A. Santha Kumaran, Adv.

                     Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Pinaki  Chandra  Ghose  pronounced  the  

reportable  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.  

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable  judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)