KUMAR @ ARASAKUMAR Vs STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE.PONDICHERRY
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001119-001119 / 2008
Diary number: 2481 / 2007
Advocates: S. MAHENDRAN Vs
V. G. PRAGASAM
Crl.A. No. 1119 of 2008 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1119 of 2008
KUMAR @ ARASAKUMAR ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE, PONDICHERRY ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Shanthi PW 1 is the elder sister of Ramesh, the
deceased, and Janki, PW2 is their mother. On 10th of
July, 2001 at about 10:30 or 11:00a.m. when the
deceased Ramesh was near the arrack shop in village
Bommiyanpettai there was some dispute between him and
A1 Gopal. At that time, Ramesh assaulted Gopal who in
turn threatened him with dire consequences. This was
also witnessed by PW 2 Janki. At about 8:00pm the same
evening Ramesh was in his house, he developed a
stomach pain on which PW 1 Shanti took him to the shop
for getting a soda to drink. As they were proceeding
to the shop Gopal came behind them, caught Ramesh by
his neck with a towel and restrained him from going any
Crl.A. No. 1119 of 2008 2
further and tried to drag him to away. PW 1 followed
them and saw that the other five accused were also
present. A village boy on seeing this ran home and
informed PW 2 who followed him and reached the scene of
the crime. Ramesh was ultimately dragged to the
Victoria Nagar Crossing in front of Thirupathi
provision store where A3 and A4 caught hold of his
hands and A1 Gopal stabbed him in the chest and A2
Kumar took out a pen knife from his pocket and stabbed
him in the flank. The noise that came about also
attracted PW 6 Sarasu to the place of incident. The
accused then ran away from the spot. The injured
Ramesh was then taken to the Government Hospital
Pondicherry by PW 1 where he was treated by the doctor.
The doctor also informed the police through Exhibit P27
that he had been brought to the hospital in an injured
condition and that five persons A1 Gopal, and four
others had caused the injuries to him. On receipt of
the note Exhibit P27 the Sub Inspector reached the
place of incident and recorded the statement of PW 1
and on its basis a case under Sections 342 and 307 read
with Section 34 IPC was registered. Ramesh
subsequently died leading to a case of murder as well.
All the accused were ultimately arrested and were
brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections
Crl.A. No. 1119 of 2008 3
302/148/149 of the IPC. The trial court relying on the
evidence of PW 1 and 2 acquitted A6 but convicted the
other accused. The matter was thereafter taken in
appeal to the High Court by the accused who had been
convicted and the High Court allowed the appeal of A3,
A4 and A5 and dismissed the appeal of A1 Gopal and A2
Kumar on the murder charge but acquitted them of the
offences under Sections 342 and 148 of the IPC. It is
the admitted case that the Special Leave Petition filed
by Gopal has been dismissed by this Court and as of
today the only person who remains before us is Kumar
A2.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued
that the High Court, having disbelieved the entire
evidence with regard to the other accused, it was clear
that PW 2 could not be said to be an eye-witness more
particularly as her testimony found no support from the
medical evidence.
3. Mr. Kanagaraj, learned Senior Counsel for the
Union Territory, has however, supported the judgemnt of
the High Court. It is true that the High Court has
disbelieved the evidence of PW 2 as she had arrived at
the scene after the incident and could not have been an
eye witness. We have no doubt, however, that her
evidence inspires full confidence. It has come in
Crl.A. No. 1119 of 2008 4
evidence that when the doctor had sent the information
to the police by Exhibit P27, the name of only A1 had
been mentioned therein but the fact that there were
other four accused had also been noted. Likewise, in
the inquest report made soon after the FIR had been
recorded, the name of A2 figures as one of the accused.
It therefore appears that name of A2 had surfaced soon
after the investigation had started subsequent to the
registration of the FIR. Some doubt could have been
created had the medical evidence not supported the
ocular testimony. We have noticed that the judgment of
the trial court and the High Court referred to the fact
that the second injury attributed to the appellant had
been caused in the right flank. The 'flank' as per the
dictionary meaning is the portion of the body which
is between the ribs and the hips. In other words as
per the courts below the injury had been caused in the
abdominal cavity on the right side. Mr. Kanagaraj, the
learned Senior counsel for the respodnent-Union
Territory has, however, pointed out that this
translation appears to be wrong inasmuch as that PW 2
had stated that the injury had been caused on the ribs.
To assist us on this argument, we requested the learned
counsel representing the parties as also some others
who were conversant with the Tamil language and were
Crl.A. No. 1119 of 2008 5
present in Court, to help us appreciate the evidence
of PW 1. It was unanimously agreed that the evidence
talks about the second injury attributed to the
appellant was in the ribs and in the chest cavity. The
translation made by the trial court as well as the High
Court, therefore, finding that the injury was in
adbominal area was not correct. We, therefore, find
that the medical evidence supports the eye witness
account of PW 1. We have absolutely no reason to
interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.
.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI APRIL 20, 2011.