Prayer
Criminal Appeal filed u/s.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order passed in S.C.No.56 of 2010 dated 11.07.2018 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry
Fact
2.1) The deceased Ramachandran, who was 54 years old at the time of his death on 02.01.2010, was working as a Librarian and was living with his wife Chithra and daughter Lalitha in Door No.10, First Main Road, Gandhiji Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry. He owned a house in Door No.30, Block-I, Viduthalai Nagar, which was allotted to him by the Puducherry Housing Board. He had given that property on a perpetual lease to one Amirta Raj. The said Amirta Raj is said to have sold that property to one Kuppu @ Thatchayani, who also lives in the neighbourhood. On coming to know of this, the deceased Ramachandran lodged a complaint alleging that his property has been unlawfully sold and on the basis of his complaint, Kuppu @ Dhatchayani was arrested by the police on 02.01.2010.
2.2) Infuriated at that, Kuppu @ Dhatchayani’s son, Annamalai [A1] (much debate was raised at the bar with regard to his name, which this Court would advert to in the course of this judgment) is said to have come to the house of Ramachandran around 11.30 p.m. in the night on 02.01.2010 and banged the gate violently. On hearing this, Ramachandran came out with a torch light to find out who it was and when Ramachandran opened the door, Annamalai [A1], armed with a knife, entered into the house and indiscriminately attacked Ramachandran. On hearing the hue and cry raised by Ramachandran, his wife Chithra [P.W.1] and daughter Lalitha [P.W.2], who were in the house, came to rescue him.
2.3) It is alleged that three persons also joined Annamalai [A1] by entering the house of Ramachandran and assisted Annamalai [A1] in the commission of offence; Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2] also suffered injuries in the attack. After the attack, the group left leaving Ramachandran dead.
2.4) On a written complaint [Ex.P.1] given by Chithra [P.W.1], the Inspector of Police, Ariyankuppam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 2 of 2010 on 03.01.2010 at 00.05 hours (12.05 A.M) for the offences under Sections 341, 302, 324 IPC read with 34 of IPC against Annamalai [A1], and two others, and prepared the printed FIR [Ex.P37], which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 8.15 a.m. on 03.01.2010
Appeal
2.13) After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 11.07.2018 in S.C.No.56 of 2010, has acquitted A2 to A5 of all the charges, but has convicted Annamalai [A1] for the offences under Sections 302 and 324(2 counts) IPC. Challenging the same, Annamalai [A1] is before this Court.
Appellant Side arguments
6) Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, principally attacked the evidence of Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2], by taking this Court through the evidence of Natarajan [D.W.1]. It is the case of the appellant that his name is not Annamalai [A1] and when such a suggestion was put to Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2], they have denied the same and have stated that the name of A1 is Annamalai. In order to show that the name of A1 is Arumugam, A1 examined his brother Natarajan as a defence witness.
Respondent Side arguments
8) Let the name of Annamalai [A1] be anything. The fact remains that Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2] knew Annamalai [A1] full well as the son of Kuppu @ Dhatchayani and therefore, there was no question of any misidentification of the attacker of the deceased Ramachandran. Chithra [P.W.1], in her complaint, had clearly narrated the sequences of events, The defence has not suggested to any witness that A1’s mother is not Kuppu @ Dhatchayani and what was hotly contested was the name Annalmalai [A1] given to A1; According to Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2] and other prosecution witnesses, the name of A1 is Annamalai, whereas according to A1 and his brother Natarajan [D.W.1], his name is Arumugam. From the time of arrest of A1, he has been shown as Annamalai S/o. Jeganathan. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the father’s name of A1 because Natarajan [D.W.1], who is the brother of A1, has given his father’s name as Jeganathan. Therefore, when the witnesses know a person well, and identifies him as the person, who had mounted the attack, the name of that person does not assume much significance because it is common in our country for a person to assume a name at home and another in his work place. In the country side, a child is first given either his paternal grandfather’s name or maternal grandfather’s name, but he will be called by a different name. Therefore, we are indeed not surprised if A1 is known to his neighbours as Annamalai, but his records show that he is Arumugam. Therefore, the trial Court was right in not placing much reliance on Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 (except Ex.D6), which were created only for the purpose of setting up the plea of mistaken identity in the case. It is seen that the incident had taken place on 02.01.2010, the case was committed to the Court of Session in the year 2010 and the trial began with the examination of Chithra [P.W.1] only in April 2016. Therefore, the accused had sufficient time at his disposal to manufacture records to support of his defence of mistaken identity.
9) One important aspect that has to be alluded to here is that when Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2] were examined by Dr.Johnson Reddy, they have stated that they were attacked by known persons. It is true that initially, Chithra [P.W.1] had given the name of Annamalai [A1] and two others in the FIR, but in the evidence, she has roped in two more accused. The legal maxim Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus would not apply in India and the principle that has been applied in India for appreciating the evidence of a witness is “removal of the chaff from the grain” theory, which the trial Court had applied and has rightly acquitted A2 to A5. The presence of Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2] in their house when the incident had taken place at 11.30 p.m. on 02.01.2010 cannot be ignored as fanciful: they being injured witnesses themselves. Just because their clothes did not get any bloodstain of the deceased, that cannot be a reason to disbelieve them in toto. The fact remains that they were injured witnesses and hence their testimony deserves a little higher pedestal.
Referring with Supreme Court judgment
In Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 421], the relevant portion of which reads thus:
“36. The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.” Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
Findings of this Court
Witnesses cannot expected to remember the timing correctly after six years from the incident
10) Mr. R. John Sathyan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR had been ante-timed, in that, even according to Chithra [P.W.1], she informed about the incident to her brother Kumaran [P.W.6.], who received the phone call at 12.45 a.m., thereafter came to Chithra’s [P.W.1’s] house and helped her for lodging the complaint. In a case of this nature, the witnesses cannot be expected to work with a Swiss watch precision and remember the timing of the various events and tell them correctly six years later when they are examined as witnesses in the trial. There are bound to be inter se discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, especially, injured witnesses because they would be in a state of trauma after the attack. Only if the witnesses were to speak like parrots, it will arouse the suspicion of the Court. In this case, there are no serious contradictions in the testimony of Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2] in respect of the kernel of the prosecution case, viz., the entry of Annamalai [A1] into their house at an odd hour to avenge the arrest of his mother and the attack mounted by him on Ramachandran and also causing of injuries to Chithra [P.W.1] and Lalitha [P.W.2].
11) In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference
12) In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison for undergoing the sentence.
Party
Annamalai @ Prakash .. Appellant Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ariyankuppam Police Station, Puducherry. .. Respondent Criminal Appeal No.689 Of 2018 ,dated on 16th March 2022 – Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash And The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.Nakkiran ,In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras
click here to go to direct link
