SEEMAN ALIAS VEERANAM Vs. STATE
LAWS(SC)-2005-5-71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 12,2005
SEEMAN, VEERANAM
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BIKRAM DAS PANIK VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-11] [REFERRED TO]DALIP KUMAR VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DINESH [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-160] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. HABU GORAIN ALIAS HABUL GORAIN [LAWS(CAL)-2006-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
KALI PRASAD SINGH ALIAS PAINTOL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
GUIRAM MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH S/O KANHAIYALAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH POLICE STATION KO [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKAVARAN S/O GYARAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-161] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
GUDALI @ KRISHNA MURARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-482] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-1-118] [REFERRED]
RAM MILAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-160] [REFERRED]
KESHAV @ KESHI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
OM SINGH @ OMBIR VS. STATE DELHI ADMN [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-241] [REFERRED TO]
MD. KAMAL UDDIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU YADAV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-227] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-569] [REFERRED TO]
BANTI @ KUNDAN MAHOR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTO) VS. YOGESH NATH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-362] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHANPAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2024-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. VIJENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE RAM NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-302] [REFERRED TO]
MANGRA ANAND CHEWASI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
VILAS RANGRAO MAHALLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
AJAI PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-194] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-173] [REFERRED TO]
MD. ABU JALAL MIAH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
MD. ABDUL HANNAN MAISHAN VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
RUSTAM KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-133] [REFERRED TO]
BALLA @ BALRAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-210] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE O [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAYAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-179] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KISMATDIN [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-158] [REFERRED]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF N C T DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY MALIK VS. STATE OF U.T. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
VED PAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
ANGEERA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-415] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND RAJ VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUV KUMAR JAISWAL @ DHRUV PRASAD @ DHRUV SAO @ DHRUV SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH C B I [LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
S.V.NAGESWARA RAO RAJA VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(APH)-2022-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. JIVRAJBHAI RAMJIBHAI KOLI [LAWS(GJH)-2024-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-292] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-214] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAIN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-354] [REFERRED]
MANTOO SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAHISUDDIN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-396] [REFERRED TO]
TIKARAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU DARBAR @ RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-142] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA MANIKCHAND BADAR (D) THR. LRS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDEO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-174] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLADSINGH S/O KAMALSINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2006-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
SRI TAPAN MAJUMDER ALIAS PURA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P. P. Naolekar, J. -
(1.)Three accused persons viz., Seeman, Neelagiri and Leelavathi, were tried for committing murder of one Murugan, under Section 302 IPC. Accused - appellant no.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The other two accused persons were acquitted. The said conviction and sentence, having been confirmed by the High Court, the appellant challenged the same before this Court by filing this appeal. The prosecution case, in short is that the deceased Murugan was the resident of Village Chithakkur. Three years prior to the occurrence, deceased Murugan and a girl named Kani fell in love and eloped from the Village. They were brought back by the villagers. After some time, Kani was married to some other person and deceased Murugan also got married to some other girl of a nearby village. On account of this incident, the accused persons had grudge to grind against the deceased, having brought bad name to the family and were awaiting an opportunity to take revenge. The deceased was advised by the well-wishers to leave the Village and settle down at some other place. He settled at Village Kariappati. On the day of the incidence, i.e., 26-1-92 deceased came to Chithakkur in search of his grandmother. At the Village, he was informed that his grandmother has left the Village and has gone to a place Thirukkani to collect her pension. The information was given to him by PW2 - Raja @ Perumal. Thereafter, the deceased along with Raja @ Perumal proceeded towards the bus stand so that the deceased could catch a bus. At the bus stop when the deceased along with PW-2 were awaiting for a bus, they saw accused no.2 at the bus stop who stared at the deceased. Apprehending that some untoward incident may happen, he was advised to go to the residence of PW-1-Danam @ Balasubramanian. In the meanwhile the bus came and stopped at some distance from the place where they were standing and the deceased rushed towards the bus. At that time accused no.3 holding broom in her hand accosted the deceased as to why he was running and asked him to stop. Suddenly, accused No.1 appeared at the bus stop and attacked the deceased with patta knife and inflicted number of injuries. The deceased fell down on the spot and succumbed to his injuries. PW1 lodged the FIR immediately after the incident claiming that he himself, one Jayaraj and Raja witnessed the incident. The postmortem on the dead body was conducted by PW-7 - Dr. Edwin Joe who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.
1. Transverse cut injury and sides of neck 21 cms. Length x 5 cms. X 9 cms., the right end is 8 cms. Below and front of right ear, the left end is 7 cms. below and back of the left ear and 0.5 cm. below chin. The wound is found to have cut the underlying muscles, wind pipe between thyroid and hyoid bone, food pipe, the left carotid artery and jugular veins on both sides and cutting the 4th cervical vertebrae 4 x 0.5 x 2 cms. and the underlying cord partially. The edges are clear cut.
2. An oblique skin deep incised wound 6 cms. length lateral aspect of middle of right arm.
3. A vertically oblique cut wound left fronto-parietal region 5 x 1 cm. cutting the underlying bone 10 cms. above left earlobe.
4. A flapping cut injury 4 x 3 x 2 cms. (muscle deep) on the right posterior occipital region with a skin flap hanging downwards 3 cms. lateral to the midline.
5. Scratch abrasion 3 cms. length top of right shoulder.
6. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm. and 0.5 x 0.5 cm. inferior angle of right scapula.
(2.)The Sessions Court convicted Appellant No.1 relying on the statement of PW1 and PW2 and drew corroboration to their testimony from medical evidence. The other two accused were acquitted giving benefit of doubt. The High Court has only relied upon the statement of PW2 as an eye-witness and found corroboration to his statement from the medical evidence. The evidence of PW1 was relied upon only for the purposes of setting the law into motion by lodging an FIR.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction of A-1 contending that:
(i) the statement of PW1 being the sole eye-witness, cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused, particularly when he is the close relative of the deceased and when the independent evidence was available with the prosecution; (ii) the presence of PW2 at the place of incident itself is doubtful. In fact it was the brother of PW2, Raja who was named as an eye-witness in the FIR and not PW-2 Raja @ Perumal. Apart from this PW2s statement in regard to other acquitted accused having been discarded by the Court, the statement, as regards the accused appellant, does not inspire confidence and (iii) it is further urged that the statement of PW-2 is not fully supported by medical evidence. The injury which has been attributed to have been caused by the appellant on the back of the deceased, was not found in the postmortem report. All these infirmities individually and cumulatively create a doubt as to whether PW1 was at all an eye-witness as claimed by the prosecution and the conviction cannot be based on the testimony of sole witness.
1. Transverse cut injury and sides of neck 21 cms. Length x 5 cms. X 9 cms., the right end is 8 cms. Below and front of right ear, the left end is 7 cms. below and back of the left ear and 0.5 cm. below chin. The wound is found to have cut the underlying muscles, wind pipe between thyroid and hyoid bone, food pipe, the left carotid artery and jugular veins on both sides and cutting the 4th cervical vertebrae 4 x 0.5 x 2 cms. and the underlying cord partially. The edges are clear cut.
2. An oblique skin deep incised wound 6 cms. length lateral aspect of middle of right arm.
3. A vertically oblique cut wound left fronto-parietal region 5 x 1 cm. cutting the underlying bone 10 cms. above left earlobe.
4. A flapping cut injury 4 x 3 x 2 cms. (muscle deep) on the right posterior occipital region with a skin flap hanging downwards 3 cms. lateral to the midline.
5. Scratch abrasion 3 cms. length top of right shoulder.
6. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm. and 0.5 x 0.5 cm. inferior angle of right scapula.
(2.)The Sessions Court convicted Appellant No.1 relying on the statement of PW1 and PW2 and drew corroboration to their testimony from medical evidence. The other two accused were acquitted giving benefit of doubt. The High Court has only relied upon the statement of PW2 as an eye-witness and found corroboration to his statement from the medical evidence. The evidence of PW1 was relied upon only for the purposes of setting the law into motion by lodging an FIR.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction of A-1 contending that:
(i) the statement of PW1 being the sole eye-witness, cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused, particularly when he is the close relative of the deceased and when the independent evidence was available with the prosecution; (ii) the presence of PW2 at the place of incident itself is doubtful. In fact it was the brother of PW2, Raja who was named as an eye-witness in the FIR and not PW-2 Raja @ Perumal. Apart from this PW2s statement in regard to other acquitted accused having been discarded by the Court, the statement, as regards the accused appellant, does not inspire confidence and (iii) it is further urged that the statement of PW-2 is not fully supported by medical evidence. The injury which has been attributed to have been caused by the appellant on the back of the deceased, was not found in the postmortem report. All these infirmities individually and cumulatively create a doubt as to whether PW1 was at all an eye-witness as claimed by the prosecution and the conviction cannot be based on the testimony of sole witness.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.