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.