Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1614     OF     2009   

Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. …..Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu          …..Respondent (s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

Madan     B.     Lokur,     J.   

1. The issue before us is whether the Trial Court and the  

High Court were both right in believing the testimony of PW-5  

Srinivasan, a related and interested witness, that his brother  

Veerappan and his mother Marudayi were murdered by the  

appellants. Whether such an issue is of such public  

importance that it requires a decision from this Court is moot.  

But, be that as it may, we find no reason to disbelieve the  

witness and agree with both the Courts that his evidence  

should be accepted.  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 1 of 19

Page 2

2. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction and sentence of  

the appellants for having committed the murder of Veerappan  

and Marudayi.  

The facts:

3. Appellant No. 1 (Raju @ Balachandran) is the father of  

appellant No. 2 (Rajkumar) and of appellant No. 3 (Sekar).

4. The case of the prosecution was that there was some  

enmity between the appellants and Veerappan relating to a  

ritual called “Mandu Vettal” performed before worshipping God  

in their village.  The enmity dated back to about 4 or 5 years  

prior to the incident that we are concerned with.

5. On 4th May 2003 at about 5.30 a.m. Veerappan had gone  

to the tea shop of PW-7 Kamaraj and was returning along with  

PW-1 Thangavel and PW-5 Srinivasan (brother of Veerappan)  

who were following him. As Veerappan approached his house,  

the appellants stopped him in the middle of the road and  

attacked him.  Raju dealt a sickle blow on his right leg below  

the knee. This was followed by sickle blows inflicted on his  

shoulder, neck and head by Raj Kumar and Sekar. Veerappan  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 2 of 19

Page 3

died instantaneously, his head having almost been severed  

from the body.

6. On hearing some shouting, Veerappan’s mother  

Marudayi came out of her house. When she saw what was  

happening, she came to rescue Veerappan and confront the  

appellants.  At that time, Raju dealt her blows with his sickle  

on her neck, shoulder and head. Marudayi succumbed to her  

injuries a short while later en route to the hospital, where she  

was being taken by PW-5 Srinivasan.  

7. A First Information Report (FIR) of the incident was  

lodged by PW-1 Thangavel and thereafter investigations were  

started by the police.

8. According to the prosecution PW-1 Thangavel and PW-5  

Srinivasan were eye witnesses to the incident.  Also, when the  

attack on Veerappan and Marudayi took place, PW-2 Smt.  

Thangammal (wife of Srinivasan), PW-3 Rajagopal and PW-4  

Smt. T. Vasugi came out of their house and witnessed the  

incident.

9. The appellants fled away after attacking Veerappan and  

Marudayi. Later on they surrendered in the local Court. When  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 3 of 19

Page 4

the investigating officer came to know of this, he sought their  

custody by moving an application in the Court. He was  

granted custody of the appellants on 14th May 2003. According  

to the prosecution, their confessional statement led to the  

recovery of the sickles used in the attack on the deceased. The  

clothes worn by the appellants were also recovered.  

10. On the conclusion of investigations, a challan was filed  

alleging that the appellants had murdered Veerappan and  

Marudayi. In Sessions Case No.76/2004 before the Additional  

District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tiruchirapally,  

the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The  

prosecution examined seventeen witnesses while the defence  

examined two witnesses.

Decision of the Trial Court:

11. During the trial, PW-1 Thangavel, the author of the FIR,  

PW-3 Rajagopal and PW-4 Smt. Vasugi turned hostile.  The  

Trial Judge was of the view that PW-2 Smt. Thangammal and  

PW-5 Srinivasan were eye witnesses and believed the  

testimony of PW-2 Smt. Thangammal (in part) and that of PW-

5 Srinivasan (in full).  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 4 of 19

Page 5

12. The Trial Judge held that PW-2 Smt. Thangammal  

generally stated that all the appellants caused injuries to the  

deceased without being specific. Consequently, her testimony  

relating to the sickle blows was not accepted.  

13. As regards PW-5 Srinivasan, it was held that he was  

specific in saying that Raju injured Veerappan with a sickle on  

the right leg below the knee, while the other two appellants  

injured him on his shoulder and neck. The nature of injuries  

was confirmed by the doctor PW-8 Dr. Sumathi Paul Raj. The  

evidence on record showed that Veerappan’s head was almost  

severed from his body and his death was instantaneous. The  

Trial Judge also accepted the evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan that  

Marudayi was grievously injured by Raju on the head, neck  

and shoulder. Again, the nature of injuries was confirmed by  

the doctor PW-8 Dr. Sumathi Paul Raj who stated that  

Marudayi died as a result of the injuries.  

14. The Trial Judge rejected the contention that since PW-5  

Srinivasan was the elder brother of Veerappan and son of  

Marudayi, his evidence was that of an interested witness and  

therefore should not be accepted. He also rejected the  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 5 of 19

Page 6

contention that since the evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan was not  

corroborated, his evidence should not be accepted.  

15. PW-6 Marudai, father of Veerappan and husband of  

Marudayi testified to the enmity between the parties as a  

result of the ritual “Mandu Vettal”.

16. PW-7 Kamaraj the owner of the tea shop visited by  

Veerappan also turned hostile. He denied that Veerappan was  

followed by PW-1 Thangavel and PW-5 Srinivasan, but he did  

not deny that Veerappan had visited his tea shop on the  

fateful morning.  

17. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were  

the doctors who conducted the post mortem, the officers who  

investigated the occurrence and some others whose testimony  

is not of much significance.

18. The Trial Judge rejected the testimony of the two defence  

witnesses as not credible. DW-1 Murugesan stated that the  

appellants had come to his house on 3rd May 2003 and had  

stayed with DW-2 Smt. S. Vasantha. However, this witness  

was not aware about when the appellants had come to his  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 6 of 19

Page 7

house and after they left for the house of DW-2 Smt. S.  

Vasantha when did they return.

19. DW-2 Smt. S. Vasantha was not believed since she stated  

that the appellants had gone to a temple festival in her village  

but there was nothing to support this statement.   

20. Based principally on the evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan and  

the recoveries made, the Trial Court, by its judgment and  

order dated 26th November 2004 convicted Raju for offences  

punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for  

short ‘IPC’) and Section 326 of the IPC in respect of Veerappan  

and Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Marudayi.  

Rajkumar and Sekar were convicted of offences punishable  

under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof for  

the murder of Veerappan.

Decision of the High Court:

21. In Criminal Appeal No.4/2005 filed by the appellants  

before the Madras High Court it was contended that since PW-

1 Thangavel, PW-3 Rajagopal and PW-4 Smt. Vasugi had  

turned hostile, there was no credible evidence against the  

appellants, more so, because the author of the FIR PW-1  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 7 of 19

Page 8

Thangavel had turned hostile.  As such, the very basis of the  

case could not be relied upon.   

22. It was further submitted that the Trial Court had not  

fully believed PW-2 Smt. Thangammal and the only witness  

who came out in support of the case of the prosecution was  

PW-5 Srinivasan. It was submitted that there were some  

discrepancies in his evidence and as per the FIR he was not  

present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, it was  

submitted, the evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan could not be relied  

upon.   

23. On the credibility of PW-5 Srinivasan, it was contended  

that the medical evidence did not match with his oral evidence  

and it would be unsafe to rely on his oral description of the  

events.  In addition, it was submitted that since PW-5  

Srinivasan was a related and interested witness, his testimony  

should be closely scrutinized and on such close scrutiny it  

would turn out that he was not a reliable witness.

24. The High Court rejected all the contentions urged on  

behalf of the appellants.  It was held that there was no doubt  

that Veerappan and Marudayi died as a result of homicidal  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 8 of 19

Page 9

violence. It was further held that on an examination of the  

evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan it could not be said that he was  

an unreliable witness.  While there may have been some minor  

discrepancies in his description of the events, he was believed  

by the Trial Judge and there was no reason for the High Court  

to disbelieve him.   

25. The High Court noted that on a reading of the FIR it was  

clear that PW-5 Srinivasan was present at the place of  

occurrence.  In addition thereto, the FIR also mentioned that  

PW-1 Thangavel had asked PW-5 Srinivasan to take Marudayi  

to the hospital for treatment.  Consequently, the presence of  

PW-5 Srinivasan at the place of occurrence could not be  

doubted.

26. The High Court also held that there was some enmity  

between the appellants and Veerappan and on an overview of  

the entire case, the conviction handed down by the Trial Court  

must be accepted.

27. Accordingly, the High Court, by its judgment and order  

dated 2nd August 2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the  

appellants.

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 9 of 19

Page 10

Discussion:

28. Before us, only two contentions were advanced by  

learned counsel for the appellants.  Firstly, it was contended  

that since PW-5 Srinivasan was a related and interested  

witness, his evidence must be closely scrutinized, and if his  

testimony is put to close scrutiny, it will be quite clear that he  

ought not to be believed. Secondly, it was contended that the  

prosecution case was doubtful since there was no evidence  

except the unreliable testimony of PW-5 Srinivasan.  

29. The first contention relates to the credibility of PW-5  

Srinivasan. It was said in this regard that he was a related  

witness being the elder brother of Veerappan and the son of  

Marudayi both of whom were victims of the homicidal attack.  

It was also said that he was an interested witness since  

Veerappan (and therefore PW-5 Srinivasan) had some enmity  

with the appellants. It was said that for both reasons, his  

testimony lacks credibility.  

30. What is the difference between a related witness and an  

interested witness? This has been brought out in State of  

Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752. It was held that:

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 10 of 19

Page 11

“True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she  cannot be called an “interested” witness. She is related to  the deceased. “Related”  is not equivalent to “interested”.  A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she  derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the  decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person  punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only  possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case  cannot be said to be “interested”.”

31. In light of the Constitution Bench decision in State of  

Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500 the view that a  

“natural witness”  or “the only possible eyewitness”  cannot be  

an interested witness may not be, with respect, correct. In  

Basawan Singh, a trap witness (who would be a natural  

eyewitness) was considered an interested witness since he was  

“concerned in the success of the trap”. The Constitution Bench  

held:

“The correct Rule is this: if any of the witnesses are  accomplices who are particeps criminis in respect of the  actual crime charged, their evidence must be treated as  the evidence of accomplices is treated; if they are not  accomplices but are partisan or interested witnesses,  who are concerned in the success of the trap, their  evidence must be tested in the same way as other  interested evidence is tested by the application of diverse  considerations which must vary from case to case, and in  a proper case, the court may even look for independent  corroboration before convicting the accused person.”

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 11 of 19

Page 12

32. The wife of a deceased (as in Kalki), undoubtedly related  

to the victim, would be interested in seeing the accused person  

punished – in fact, she would be the most interested in seeing  

the accused person punished. It can hardly be said that she is  

not an interested witness. The view expressed in Kalki is too  

narrow and generalized and needs a rethink.

33. For the time being, we are concerned with four categories  

of witnesses –  a third party disinterested and unrelated  

witness (such as a bystander or passer-by); a third party  

interested witness (such as a trap witness); a related and  

therefore an interested witness (such as the wife of the victim)  

having an interest in seeing that the accused is punished; a  

related and therefore an interested witness (such as the wife or  

brother of the victim) having an interest in seeing the accused  

punished and also having some enmity with the accused. But,  

more than the categorization of a witness, the issue really is  

one of appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A court  

should examine the evidence of a related and interested  

witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and  

also having some enmity with the accused with greater care  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 12 of 19

Page 13

and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested  

and unrelated witness. This is all that is expected and  

required.  

34. In the present case, PW-5 Srinivasan is not only a related  

and interested witness, but also someone who has an enmity  

with the appellants. His evidence, therefore, needs to be  

scrutinized with great care and caution.  

35. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 this  

Court observed, without any generalization, that a related  

witness would ordinarily speak the truth, but in the case of an  

enmity there may be a tendency to drag in an innocent person  

as an accused –  each case has to be considered on its own  

facts. This is what this Court had to say:

“A witness is normally to be considered independent  unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to  be tainted and that usually means unless the witness  has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish  to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would  be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate  an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high  and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a  tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a  witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but  foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the  mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is  often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 13 of 19

Page 14

attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must  be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only  made to combat what is so often put forward in cases  before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such  general rule. Each case must be limited to and be  governed by its own facts.”

36. How the evidence of such a witness should be looked at  

was again considered in Darya Singh v. State of Punjab,  

(1964) 3 SCR 397. This Court was of the opinion that a  

related or interested witness may not be hostile to the  

assailant, but if he is, then his evidence must be examined  

very carefully and all the infirmities taken into account. It was  

observed that where the witness shares the hostility of the  

victim against the assailant, it would be unlikely that he would  

not name the real assailant but would substitute the real  

assailant with the “enemy”  of the victim. This is what this  

Court said:

“There can be no doubt that in a murder case when  evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the  murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy  of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence  of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the  victim, very carefully. But a person may be interested in  the victim, being his relation or otherwise, and may not  necessarily be hostile to the accused. In that case, the  fact that the witness was related to the victim or was his  friend, may not necessarily introduce any infirmity in his  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 14 of 19

Page 15

evidence. But where the witness is a close relation of the  victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his  assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the  criminal courts examine the evidence given by such  witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in  that evidence before deciding to act upon it…….. [I]t  may  be relevant to remember that though the witness is  hostile to the assailant, it is not likely that he would  deliberately omit to name the real assailant and  substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the  family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim  would be so powerful in his mind that he would  unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not  think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family  though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not  improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may  name the real assailant and may add other persons out  of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be  borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested  witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept  the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the  deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility  of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can  never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material  particulars.”  

37. More recently, in Waman v. State of Maharashtra,  

(2011) 7 SCC 295 this Court dealt with the case of a related  

witness (though not a witness inimical to the assailant) and  

while referring to and relying upon Sarwan Singh v. State of  

Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369, Balraje v. State of  

Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673, Prahlad Patel v. State of  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 15 of 19

Page 16

Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 262, Israr v. State of Uttar  

Pradesh, (2005) 9 SCC 616, S. Sudershan Reddy v. State  

of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 163, State of Uttar  

Pradesh v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, Jarnail Singh v.  

State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 and Vishnu v. State of  

Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 it was held:

“It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related  to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence  cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be  consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by  itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the  relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a  witness and the courts have to scrutinise their evidence  meticulously with a little care.”

38. The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related  

or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully  

examined. In a case where the related and interested witness  

may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need  

to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be  

examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.  

However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as  

held in Dalip Singh and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh  

in the following words:  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 16 of 19

Page 17

“The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer  from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a  rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of  such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care.  Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied  that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of  truth such evidence could be relied upon even without  corroboration.”

39. We have gone through the evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan  

by applying the discerning scrutiny standard and find it  

difficult to overturn the view expressed by both the Courts in  

their acceptance of his evidence. His description of the events  

is simple and straightforward and the cross-examination does  

not demolish his version of the events. In fact, the cross-

examination is directed more at proving that one  

Subramaniam may have been the assailant since Veerappan  

had an illicit relationship with Subramaniam’s first wife  

Periammal. This was ruled out by PW-5 Srinivasan who did  

not want to shield the real assailant and put the blame for the  

occurrence on someone else.  

40. As far as the second contention is concerned, it overlaps  

with the first. Both the Trial Court and the High Court have  

concurrently held that PW-5 Srinivasan was an eye witness to  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 17 of 19

Page 18

the murder of Veerappan and Marudayi.  The conclusion  

arrived at by both the Courts has not been shown to be  

perverse in any manner whatsoever nor has it been shown  

deserving of reversal.

41. The presence of PW-5 Srinivasan at the place of  

occurrence cannot be doubted in view of the FIR lodged by  

PW-1 Thangavel and his testimony. Even though PW-1  

Thangavel may have turned hostile, the fact remains that a  

report was made to the police about the homicidal attack on  

Veerappan and Marudayi.  That there was a homicidal attack  

on them is not in dispute. This is confirmed even by the  

witnesses who turned hostile. It is also not in dispute that  

Veerappan died on the spot and that Marudayi was grievously  

injured. This too is confirmed by the witnesses who turned  

hostile. That PW-5 Srinivasan took Marudayi to the hospital  

immediately after she was attacked is confirmed by PW-1  

Thangavel. On the basis of these facts, which are evident from  

the record, there is no option but to accept the conclusion of  

both the Courts that PW-5 Srinivasan was present at the place  

of occurrence and was an eye witness to the incident. His  

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 18 of 19

Page 19

testimony is not unreliable but is supported in its essential  

details by the testimony of the other witnesses.  

Conclusion:

42. We find the evidence of PW-5 Srinivasan credible  

notwithstanding that he was a related and interested witness.  

Accordingly, we uphold the conviction and sentence awarded  

to the appellants by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High  

Court.

43. The appeal is dismissed.  

.…….……………………..J.   (Swatanter Kumar)

….…….……………………..J.   (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi November 27, 2012

Crl. Appeal No. 1614 of 2009                                                                    Page 19 of 19