NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1990 OF 2012

SADAYAPPAN @ GANESAN             …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE, REPRESENTED BY         …RESPONDENT INSPECTOR OF POLICE

J U D G M E N T N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated

13th  December, 2011 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2011

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed

the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and upheld

his conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for

the offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34, IPC.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that Selvam @ Thangaraj

(deceased), Karuppusamy (A1) and Sadayappan @

Ganesan (A2/appellant herein) were neighbouring

1

agricultural land owners in the village of Kandavayal who

used to go together for hunting of rabbits in the nearby

forest  area.  Around 15 years  prior to the incident, the

deceased Thangaraj had negotiated to buy some

agricultural land from  A1 and paid him  Rs. 30,000/­

towards the sale value and took possession of the said

land. However, despite repeated requests, A1 had never

come forward for registering the sale deed in favour of the

deceased. Owing to this, A1 and the deceased developed

animosity towards each other. A2—appellant herein is the

adjacent landowner who always supported A1 in avoiding

registration of the sale deed.  Despite animosity  against

the deceased, A1 and A2 kept on going to the forest for

hunting along with him. On May 27, 2008 at about 11

p.m., both A1 and A2 went to the house of deceased and

insisted that he accompany them to the fields/forest.

Eventually, the deceased  went  with them hesitatingly.

When the deceased did not return home till 4 am in the

morning, his wife—Rajammal (PW1) sent one Palanisamy

(PW2—brother of the deceased) and Govindarajan (PW3—

nephew of the deceased) to search for her husband. PWs

2

2 and 3, while searching for the deceased, found his dead

body near the fields with bleeding injuries. They

immediately rushed to PW1 and informed her of the

same.  

3. On a complaint given by PW1, the Sub­Inspector of

Police (PW14) at Sirumugai Police Station registered the

crime under Section 302, IPC and Section 25 (1B)(a) of

the Indian Arms Act against the accused. The Assistant

Commissioner of Police (PW15—Pandian) took up the

investigation and after completing the formalities of

holding inquest and preparing inquest report (Ext. P21),

sent the body of the deceased for post­mortem. On

August 29, 2008 the accused appeared before the Village

Administrative Officer (VAO) and confessed to committing

the crime.  When the  VAO  produced the accused  with

their confessional statements, the I.O. arrested them and

at their instance recovered material objects including

Single Barrel Muzzle Loading Gun (MO1), torch light with

battery, blood stained and normal soil, torn clothes,

lungi, towel etc. and sent them for chemical analysis.

Subsequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed

3

the case to the  Principal  District and  Sessions  Judge,

Coimbatore who framed charges against the accused­

appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.

The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. After an elaborate trial, the Trial Judge opined that

the circumstantial  evidence correlates with the accused

and clearly proves that owing to prior enmity, A1 and A2,

in furtherance of their common intention, committed the

murder of the deceased with a gun shot from the

unauthorized gun owned by accused­appellant.  The Trial

Court thereby found both the accused guilty and

accordingly convicted the appellant herein under Section

302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced him to life

imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000  vide

order dated 18.05.2011. Both the accused preferred an

appeal before the High Court which was dismissed  vide

order dated December 13, 2011. Aggrieved thereby, both

the accused preferred separate appeals before this Court.

It is  pertinent to state that the appeal of the A1 stood

abated owing to his death during its pendency. Thus, we

are now concerned only with the appeal preferred by A2.

4

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

contended that the courts below have incorrectly relied on

the testimonies of interested witnesses who are relatives

of the deceased. He submitted that the chain of

circumstances connecting  the appellant  to the crime  is

incomplete. He further submitted that the courts below

erred in holding that the appellant had motive to commit

the alleged crime and shared a common intention with

A1,  inasmuch as the land dispute between A1 and the

victim had already been settled amicably in the

panchayat. He argued that A1, A2 and the victim were on

friendly terms thereafter which is reinforced from the fact

that they used to go to the forest for hunting together.  

6. Learned counsel appearing for the  State, however,

supported the judgment of the High Court and submitted

that there was no occasion for this Court to interfere with

it.

7. We have  heard the learned counsels for the parties

and meticulously perused the material on record.  

8. Admittedly, the deceased, A1 and A2 (appellant

herein)  were  neighbouring agricultural landowners and

5

used to go for hunting together. Further, there is no

denial of the fact that around 15 years prior to the date of

incident, the deceased and A1 had entered  into a deal

through which  land was sold  to the  deceased,  but the

same  was never registered. Additionally, record shows

that A2—the appellant herein, whose land was adjacent

to that of A1, always supported A1 in the  matter of

delaying the registration of land in favour of the deceased.

This is the factual matrix of enmity between the accused

and the deceased which serves as motive for the offence.

Despite this, the deceased kept on going to the forest for

hunting with the accused persons. These facts are

abundantly clear from the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4

and 6.  

9. Further, PW1 – wife of the deceased  (complainant),

who is the witness to the last seen, supported the

prosecution version and deposed that two days prior to

the incident she had pressed A1 to register the land, but

he  kept  quiet  and  went  away.  She further  stated that

owing  to this  pre­existing  enmity, the  accused persons

were motivated to eliminate her husband. Thus, on the

6

fateful night, the accused had come, armed, to take the

deceased along with them to the forest, a request which

was acceded to by the deceased hesitatingly.  

10. With respect to the deposition of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6

which firmly establish the prosecution version, the

learned counsel for the appellant contended that they are

inter­related and interested witnesses, thus, making their

evidence unreliable.  

11. Criminal law jurisprudence makes a clear distinction

between a  related  and  interested  witness. A witness

cannot be said to be an “interested”  witness merely by

virtue of being a relative of the victim.   The 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. [See:

Sudhakar v. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435].

12. In the case  at  hand,  witnesses  maybe related  but

they cannot be labelled as interested witnesses. A

scrutiny of their testimonies which has stood the rigour of

cross­examination corroborates the prosecution story.  

13. PW2—brother of the deceased and PW3—nephew of

7

the  deceased, clearly  deposed that  when  they came to

know from PW1 that the deceased did not turn up after

leaving home at 11 pm on the previous night, they went

in search of him and found his dead body in ‘Vaalaithope’.

Similarly, PW4 – another nephew of the deceased has also

deposed  that  upon coming  to  know  from his  brother—

PW3  about the death of his  uncle, he along  with  his

mother went to  ‘Vaalaithope’ where they found the dead

body of the deceased. PW6—another nephew of the

deceased  also  deposed in  his statement that  when  he

went to Sirumugai Police  Station  he saw the accused

persons there and witnessed their confessional

statements recorded by the police. He also stated that he

accompanied the police with the accused to the place of

occurrence  where normal and  blood stained  mud  was

collected, and that  he signed the  observation  Mahazar

(Ex.P7).   

14. Going by the corroborative statements of these

witnesses, it is discernible that though they are related to

each other  and to  the  deceased as well, their  evidence

cannot be discarded by simply labelling them as

8

“interested” witnesses. After thoroughly scrutinizing their

evidence, we do not find any direct or indirect interest of

these witnesses  to get the accused punished by  falsely

implicating him so as to meet out any vested interest. We

are, therefore, of the considered view that the evidences of

PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are quite reliable and we see no

reason to disbelieve them.

15. With respect to forensic evidence, Dr. T. Jeya Singh

(PW12), who conducted post mortem on the body of the

deceased, found  prominent injures  on the  body  of the

deceased and opined that the deceased died due to shock

and haemorrhage from multiple injuries (perforating and

penetrating) which were possible due to piercing of

pellets.  The  post  mortem report  and  chemical analysis

report confirms  the  gun shot  and proves that the  gun

powder discovered on the body and clothes of the

deceased was the residue of the gun (MO1). The

ownership of this gun (MO1),  which was discovered on

the basis of  his extra­judicial  confession,  has not been

disputed by the appellant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C.

statement.  

9

16. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

agitated the genuineness and admissibility of the extra­

judicial confession of the accused on the basis of which

recovery of gun (MO1) was made. He questioned the same

on the basis of absence of the examination of the VAO

who allegedly recorded the same. It is to be noted that the

record indicates that the VAO could not be examined due

to his death before the commencement of the trial.

However, it is clear that the said confessional statement,

was sent by the VAO to the Inspector of Police along with

a covering letter (Ext. P14). Moreover, the Village

Assistant—PW11, even though turned hostile, had

specifically deposed that the said extra judicial confession

was recorded by the VAO.

17. Though the prosecution case is premised on

circumstantial evidence in the absence of any eye­

witness, the depositions of prosecution witnesses which

have stood the rigour of cross­examination clearly

support the prosecution version and establishes enmity

between the accused and the deceased. This fact

supported by PW1’s last seen evidence, her prompt

10

complaint to the police and the forensic evidence which

correlates the recovered weapon to the physical injuries

on the body of the deceased proves the prosecution case

beyond any reasonable doubt independent of the extra­

judicial confession.

18. Thus, the High Court was justified in upholding the

conviction of the appellant and did not commit any

illegality in passing the impugned judgment which merits

interference. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit

stands dismissed.

……………………………….……..J.                         (N. V. RAMANA)

……………………………………...J.  (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

NEW DELHI; APRIL 26, 2019.

11