Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2009

VELU @ VELMURUGAN & ORS.      … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR  OF POLICE                   …RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. This appeal, by special leave has been preferred by the  

appellants against their conviction and sentence.

2. Altogether  six  persons  were  put  on  trial  and  in  the  

present appeal we are concerned with the four appellants who  

were Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.  Appellant No. 1, Velu @  

Velmurugan has been found guilty under Sections 302 and  

324  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  sentenced  to  undergo  

imprisonment for life and two years respectively, while other  

appellants  have  been held  guilty  under  Section  324 of  the  

Indian  Penal  Code  and  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 2

imprisonment for two years.

3. Prosecution  commenced  on  the  basis  of  the  report  

given by PW-1, Subramani before the Sub-Inspector of Police  

on  6th of  March,  2002  at  1.00  A.M.  at  JIPMER  Hospital,  

Pondicherry.  According to the informant, three acres of land  

situated in his village was leased out to his family by its owner  

Ranga Iyer 40 years ago and since then they were cultivating  

the same.  In the year 1985, according to the prosecution,  

Balasundaram (since acquitted) who happens to be the father  

of Appellant No. 1, Velu purchased the aforesaid land from  

Ranga Iyer and asked the informant and his family members  

to vacate the same but they did not accede to his request.  

Instead they filed civil suit claiming right over the land which  

is  pending adjudication before  the court.   Prosecution case  

further is that informant’s elder brother Narayanswami was  

done to death by men of Balasundaram in the year 1993 due  

to the aforesaid dispute.  It is the case of the prosecution that  

on  5th of  March,  2002,  the  informant  came  from  Chennai  

where  he  was  working  as  a  Junior  Assistant  in  Survey  

Department to his village.  There Appellant No. 1, Velu met  

him and asked him to see that his brother  Ramachandran

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 3

vacate the land failing which he will  meet the same fate as  

that of his brother Narayanswami.  Thereafter, according to  

the  prosecution,  the  informant  returned  to  his  home,  took  

food  and  left  for  Chennai  along  with  his  bother  

Ramachandran  and  when  reached  village  Kandamanadi,  

opposite  Sudhakar  Engineering Workshop,  Appellants  Velu,  

Magesh,  Ramakrishnan and Subramani  along with another  

accused (since acquitted) came in a group armed with knives  

and casurina sticks.  It has been alleged that Appellant No. 1,  

Velu gave knife blow on the head of Ramachandran whereas  

Appellant No. 4, Subramani caused injury on his left hand.  It  

was protested by the informant, whereupon Appellant No. 1,  

Velu  caused  injury  on  his  ankle  and  knee  and  appellant  

Ramakrishnan beat him with the stick on his left  shoulder  

and right knee.  Appellant Subramani is alleged to have given  

a stick blow on the informant’s right arm.  After assaulting  

Ramachandran and the informant the accused persons fled  

away from the place of occurrence.  Injured were taken to the  

Villupuram  Government  Hospital  where  after  initial  

treatment,  they  were  referred  to  JIPMER  Hospital,  

Pondicherry for further treatment but Ramachandran died on  

way to the hospital and was pronounced dead by the doctors

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 4

at the JIPMER Hospital.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, case under  

Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 was registered against  

the  appellants  and  other  two  accused  persons  (since  

acquitted).  After usual investigation police submitted charge-

sheet  and  ultimately  the  appellants  along  with  two  other  

accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions to  

face trial.  Appellants denied to have committed any offence  

and claimed to be tried.  In order to bring home the charge the  

prosecution examined altogether 21 witnesses besides a large  

number of documents were exhibited.   

5. The  trial  court  relying  on  the  evidence  of  PW-1,  

Subramani,  and  the  dying  declaration  of  the  deceased  

Ramachandran  recorded  by  PW-19,  Dr.  Balasubramaniyan  

held  that  the  prosecution  has  been  able  to  prove  its  case  

beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants and the  

accused  Mahalingam but  acquitted  Balasundram of  all  the  

charges leveled against him.  On appeal the High Court set  

aside  the  conviction  of  Mahalingam  and  maintained  the  

conviction of Appellant No. 1, Velu under Sections 302 and  

324 of the Indian Penal Code but set aside the conviction of

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 5

Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal  

Code and that of Appellant No. 4 under Section 302/149 of  

the Indian Penal Code but convicted them under Section 324  

of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  sentenced  them  to  undergo  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  years.   That  is  how  the  

appellants are before us.

6. Mr.  R.  Balasubramanian,  Senior  Advocate  appearing  

on behalf of the appellants submits that there is inordinate  

delay in lodging the first information report and in view of the  

admitted animosity between the parties, false implication of  

the  appellants  cannot  be  ruled  out.   He  points  out  that  

according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place  

at 5.30 P.M. on 5th of March, 2002 whereas the report which  

led to the registration of the first information report was given  

between 1200 hrs. to 1300 hrs in the night of 5th/6th of March,  

2002.  This delay, according to the Senior Counsel, itself is  

sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution.  It has been  

pointed  out  that  PW-1,  Subramani  and  the  deceased  

Ramachandran while being taken to the hospital had crossed  

various police stations but they did not give any report of the  

incident.  

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 6

We  do  not  find  any  substance  in  the  submission  of  the  

learned Senior Counsel.  The occurrence has taken place at  

about  5.30  P.M.  on  5th of  March,  2002  in  which  PW-1,  

Subramani  and  the  deceased  Ramachandran  sustained  

serious injuries.  They were taken to the Government Hospital  

at  Villupuram  where  they  were  examined  by  PW-19,  Dr.  

Balasubramanian at 5.50 P.M. and 5.55 P.M. and after giving  

initial  treatment  they  were  referred  to  JIPMER Hospital  at  

Pondicherry.   In  a  situation  like  this  when  PW-1  had  

sustained nine injuries and the deceased Ramachandran had  

sustained  multiple  injuries,  the  normal  conduct  of  human  

being  would  be  to  save  their  lives  and  rush  them  to  the  

hospital and in that state of mind it is not expected that they  

would first make an effort to lodge report to the police.  It is  

worth  mentioning  here  that  when  Sub-Inspector  of  Police  

came  to  know  about  the  incident,  he  first  went  to  the  

Villupuram Government  Hospital  and thereafter  to  JIPMER  

Hospital at Pondicherry and it is in the hospital that PW-1,  

Subramani  given  report  to  the  police.   Therefore,  in  our  

opinion, the delay in lodging the first information in no way  

affects the credibility of the case of the prosecution.  

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 7

Mr.  Balasubramanian,  then  contends  that  in  view  of  the  

admitted animosity between the parties, the conviction of the  

appellants  on  the  basis  of  the  solitary  eye-witness  PW-1,  

Subramani is not fit to be sustained.  He submits that the  

evidence of  PW-1, Subramani  is not in conformity with the  

dying declaration of the deceased Ramachandran recorded by  

PW-19, Dr. Balasubramanian.  According to him, to sustain  

conviction on the basis of a solitary eye-witness, said witness  

has to be wholly reliable.  We do not find any substance in  

this  submission  of  Mr.  Balasubramanian  also.   PW-1,  

Subramani is an eye-witness to the occurrence and he has  

given in detail the role played by each of the appellants.  PW-

19, Dr. Balasubramanian who had examined him immediately  

after  the  occurrence  at  5.55  P.M.  at  Government  Hospital,  

Villupuram had found nine injuries on his person.  Therefore,  

his presence at the time of occurrence cannot be ruled out.  

He has supported the case of the prosecution in all material  

particulars.  PW-19, Dr. Balasubramanian has clearly stated  

in  his  evidence  that  while  he  examined  the  deceased  

Ramachandran at 5.55 P.M. in the hospital, he disclosed to  

him that five known persons which included Appellant Nos. 1

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 8

to 3, took part in the occurrence and caused injury.  We are of  

the opinion that the evidence of PW-1, Subramani is wholly  

reliable.  Further evidence of PW-19, Dr. Subramanian, who  

recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Ramachandran  

also lends support to the case of the prosecution.  We are of  

the opinion that the High Court committed no error in relying  

on  the  evidence  of  PW-1,  Subramani  and  PW-19,  Dr.  

Subramanian to sustain the conviction of the appellants.   

It is worth mentioning here that after we had pronounced the  

judgment  Ms.  Swarupa  Reddy,  Advocate  informed  us  that  

acquitted accused in this case Balasundram who happens to  

be the father of Appellant No. 1, Velu, wants to address us.  

We permitted him to do so and while making submission he  

handed  over  written  submission  making  request  for  a  CBI  

inquiry to bring out the truth.  The submission made has no  

bearing in the facts of the present case.

7. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal  

and it is dismissed accordingly.

…….………………………………….J.                             (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

Crl.A. No. 1047 of 2009 9

                                       ………..……………………………….J.

                                (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) NEW DELHI, APRIL 27, 2011.