CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE

                            [2017] 3 S.C.R. 772


A                 CHANDRASEK,AR AND ANOTHER
                                      v.
                                   STATE
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of2012)
B                               MAY22, 2017
           (L. NAGESWARA RAO AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
          Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 324 - Repeated assault by
    appellants on deceased's head with weapons resulting in his death
    - Witness also suffered injuries - Motive was acquittal of the
c   deceased day before in a criminal prosecution at the behest of
    appellant - Conviction of appellants u/s. 302 and sentenced to life
    imprisonment-Appellant 'C' also convicted uls. 324 with six 111011ths
    rigorous imprisonment - Said order upheld by the High Court -
    Jnte1ference with - Held: Not called for - Indiscriminate assault on
D   deceased 's head, reflects the individual intention of each one of
    them to ensure the death of deceased -Number of injuries on the
    head of deceased sufficient to conclude the nature of murderous
    assault made by appellants - Thus, intention to cause death,
    alongwith motive stands established - Credibility and reliability of
     PW-1 as eye witness, established - Failure of the prosecution to
E
     place the first injwy report of the witness not fatal - Reliable ocular
     evidence available - PW-2 and PW-3 also eye-witnesses to
     occurrence, established.
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F         HELD: 1.1 The appellants came together armed at the place
    of occurrence in a car. Their utterances before a merciless assault
    primarily on the head, that acquittal by the Court would bring no
    succor to the deceased, reflects a state of preparedness and is
    an expression of the intention that they were determined to do
    away with the deceased. The intention to cause death, alongwith
G   motive therefore stands established. (Para 8] [779-E-F]
          1.2 Criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the
     evidence of a person injured in the same occurrence as it
     presumes that he was speaking the truth unless shown otherwise.
     The number of injuries on the head of the deceased is sufficient
H
                                       772
         CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE                              773


to conclude the nature of murderous assault made by all the             A
appellants. No suggestion was given to PW-1 that he was not
present at the time of assault and that he was not injured in the
same occurrence. It establishes his credibility and reliability as
an eye witness speaking the truth. Since he was an eye witness
to the assault which took place in broad daylight, and the number
                                                                         B
of injuries makes it evident that it continued for some time, there
is nothing suspicious in his evidence when he describes the
manner, nature and weapon of assault by the appellants. [Paras 9,
10] [780-A-C]
      1.3 The failure of the prosecution to place the injury report
of the witness from the Government Hospital, where he was first
                                                                         c
taken for treatment is a lacuna, but cannot be held to be fatal as
to doubt the entire prosecution case or shake the credibility of
the witness. It cannot lead to any conclusion of his injury report
being fabricated. No such suggestion was made by the defence
to PW-12-doctor. The appellants are named in the FIR registered          D
soon after the occurrence. The fact that the witness may have
stated of assault by two known persons to PW-12, without naming
any of the appellants is inconsequential. The doctor was a
prosecution witness for the limited purpose of the injury report
and not a prosecution witness with regard to the occurrence. [Para
11] [780-E-G]                                                            E

      1.4 The fact that the witness may be related to the deceased
by marriage, cannot be sufficient reason to classify him as a related
and interested witness to reject his testimony. It may only call
for greater scrutiny and caution in consideration of the same.
The animosity of the appellants was primarily with the deceased          F
on account of his acquittal the previous day, in the criminal
prosecution. The transfer of lands by the deceased in favour of
the witness, being a completed transaction, is considered too
remote a circumstance for enmity between appellants and witness
as a ground for false implication. In any event, because of the          G
reliable ocular evidence available, motive loses much of its
relevance. [Para 12] [781-C-E]
      1.5 The fact that PW-2 and PW-3 were also eye witnesses
to the occurrence stands well established. PW-2 being the wife
                                                                         H
774            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     of the deceased, there is no reason why she would not be speaking
      the truth with regard. to the real assailants instead of shielding
      them by false implication. The fact that she had the courage to
      name her own in-Jaws as the assailants is also a factor which speaks
      of the reliability of her evidence. The trial judge rightly believed
      PW-2 and PW-3 to be eye-witnesses. PW-4, independent witness,
B
      referred to by PW-3 as also having been present deposed of the
      appellants attacking the deceased. The fact that in his cross-
      examination he may have stated that he was not aware how
      appellant and PW-1 sustained injuries cannot classify him as hostile
      or completely unreliable witness. [Para 13](781-G-H; 782-A-B]
c           1.6. The appellants came together armed with a hammer,
      sickle and iron rod respectively. They assaulted the deceased
      indiscriminately on the head repeatedly, a very sensitive part of
      the human body reflecting the individual intention of each one of
      them to ensure the death of the deceased. The number of injuries
D     caused on the head speaks for itself regarding the intention of
      the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
      is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants.
      [Paras 1,4, 16] (782-B-C, D)
            Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 288 :
E           (2010] 15 SCR 1; Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of A.P
            (1985) 4 sec 80 - referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
      (2010) 15 SCR 1                referred to             Para 10
F     (1985) 4 sec 80                referred to             Para 11
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION: Criminal Appeal
      No.1345of2012.                                                          -,t
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2010 of the High Court
      ofJudicature at Madras in Crl. A. No. 91 of2010
G
                                        WITH
            Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of2012.
            Gopal Shankaranarayan, Ani I Kumar Mishra-I, Ranj ith B. Marar,
      Lakshmesh S. Karnath, Deepak Anand, Ms. Lakshmi K., Advs. for the
H     Appellants.
          CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE                                     775


      Ms. Nithya, M. Yogesh Kanna, Utkarsh Srivastav, Partha Sarathi,           A
Advs. for the Respondent.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The appellants stand convicted under
Section 302 !PC to life imprisonment. Appellant Chandrasekar additionally
stands convicted under Section 324 IPC to six months rigorous                   B
imprisonment.
         2. The statement of the injured, PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri, brother-
in-law of the deceased Gnanasekaran, was recorded by the Sub-Inspector
of Police at the Udumalpet Government Hospital on 17 .07 .2007 at I0:00
AM with regard to the assault made by the appellants on the deceased            c
and the witness, the same morning at 7:30 AM. The motive was ascribed
to the acquittal of the deceased the previous day, in a criminal prosecution
at the behest of appellant Govindaraj. The deceased was assaulted by
the appellants repeatedly on the head with a hammer, sickle and iron rod
respectively. The witness was also assaulted by the appellants causing          D
injuries. Formal FIR was registered the same day under Section 506 (ii)
and 307, JPC. The deceased expired at the hospital on the same day at
 I I :30 AM after which Section 302 IPC was also added.
       3. The postmortem of the deceased, Exhibit P-5, was conducted
by PW-11 Dr. Jayasingh, who found the following injuries on the person
                                                                                 E
of the deceased:
        I) A vertical incised wound measuring 3 x 1 x 4 cm, brain deep
        noted on right temporal regions 2 cm behind upper end of right
        ear, 4 cm above to tip of right mastoid on dissection, the wound
        cutting the underlying scalp, skull, and dura and enter into the
        brain tissue measuring 3 x 0.5 x 2 cm. Diffused subdural and             F
        sub arachnoid hemorrhage noted on both cerebral hemisphere.
        2) A transverse incised wound measuring 3 x 0.5 x 5 cm brain
        deep noted on righttemporal region. The lower end of the wound
       ·starting from the lower end of the wound no.! and ends at the
        level of upper end of right ear. On dissection, the wound cutting        G
        the underlying scalp, skull, and dura and enter into the brain tissue
        measuring 4 x 0.5 x 2 cm.
        3) A sutured laceration 2 x 0.5 x brain deep with surroundings
        contusion measuring 8 x 4 cm noted on right temporal region 3
        cm above to wound no.2, and 7 cm below to sagital suture line.           H
776    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     On dissection, the underlying sub scalpel area is contused
      measuring 9 x 5 cm, the skull bone is fractured into multiple
      pieces in varying size and shape, the dura is torn and the brain
      tissue is lacerated measuring 4 x 3 x 2 cm deep.
      4) A round shaped contusion 3 cm in diameter noted on right
B     side temple 0.5 cm medial to wound no.2 and 0.5 cm below to
      wound no.3. On dissection underlying sub scalpel area is
      contused, the skull shows perforation of about 2.6 cm in diameter
      and the detached part of the skull is found lying over the dura.
      5) A sutured lacerated wound noted on right side upper cheek
c     measuring 2 x 0.5 x 1 cm bone deep. On dissection the underlying
      maxilla is fractured, with surrounding muscles bruised.
      6) A transversely incised sutured wound measuring 3 x 0.5 x 0.5
      cm muscle deep noted on the 1 cm below to wound no.5, and 0.5
      cm medial to right ear lobe.
D     7) A sutured lacerated wound, 4 x 0.5 x brain deep noted on the
      upper part of right parietal region. On dissection underlying
      Subscalpal region bruised, the skull sows perforation of about
      2.6 cm in diameter and the detached part of the skull is found
      lying over the dura.
E     8) A sutured lacerated wound, 3x0.5x bone deep noted on the
      lower part of right parietal region. On dissection underlying
      Subscalpal region bruised, the skull bone is fractured, measuring
      3 x 0.25 x brain deep.
      9) A sutured lacerated wound, 3 x 0.5 x skin deep noted on the
 F    mid occipital region. On dissection underlying Subscalpal region
      bruised.       ·
      10) A curved incised wound 2 x 0.5 x skin deep noted on left
      occipital region. On dissection underlying Subscalpal region
      bruised.
 G    11) A curved lacerated wound 3 x 1 x skin deep noted on centre
      ofleft parietal bone. On dissection underlying Subscalpal region
      bruised.
      12) A sutured lacerated wound, 4x0.5x brain deep noted on the
      lower part ofright parietal region. On dissection the underlying
 H
          CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE                                777
                   [NAVIN SINHA, J.]

       subscalpel area is contused, the skull shows perforation of about    A
       2.6 cm in diameter and the detached part of the skull is found
       lying over the dura.
       13) A curved sutured incised wound 4x0.5x skin deep noted on
       left side temporal region.
       14) An incised wound 1lx0.5x muscle deep noted on outer aspect      B
       of left arm.
       15) A sutured incised wound 3x0.5x muscle deep noted on back
       of right thumb.
       16) Abrasion 4x2 cm noted on right forehead.                        c
       17) Abrasion 3x2 cm noted on front of right knee.
       18) Abrasion 4x0.5 cm noted on outer aspect of right chest.
       The cause of death was opined to the multiple Cranio cerebral
       injuries sustained.
                                                                           D
       4. The injury report of PW-I Lalbahadur Sastri, Exhibit P-6 was
proved by PW-12 Dr. Krishnaraj of the Ramakrishna Hospital, who found
the following injuries on his person:
       1) U shaped laceration over right forearm 1Ox5cm volar aspect
       middle third exposing the muscle.                                    E
       2) Lacerat.ion from middle third ofleft forearm to middle phalanx
       of left little finger with Ulnar nerve cut with tendon injury and
       ligament injury.
       3) S'h MCP joint disrupted.
                                                                            F
       4) Multiple lacerated injury over the face.
       Injuries 2 and 3 were grievous and injuries 1 and 4 simple in
       nature.
      5. The submission on behalf of the appellant Balasubramanian
was that there was no motive for him to commit the assault. Enmity         G
existed between the deceased and appellant Govindaraj. PW- I
Lalbahadur Sastri in his cross-examination stated that PW-2 Lakshmi
and PW-3 Udayachandran were not present at the time of the assault.
The latter two, therefore, cannot be considered as eye-witness. Their
evidence is completely at variance as they claim that PW-I Lalbahadur
                                                                           H
778            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     Sastri reached after them. Kandasamy who took the deceased to the
      Coimbatore Hospital has not been examined. PW-I Lalbahadur Sastri
      first went to the Udumalpet Government Hospital. But there is no injury
      report with regard to him from that hospital. The subsequent injury repo1t,
      prepared at 5:30 PM at the Ramakrishna Hospital, cannot be accepted
      as true in absence of any explanation by the prosecution for non-
B
      production of the first injury report. The injury report by PW-12 Dr.
      Krishnaraj mentions that the injured spoke of assault by two known
      persons only with a hammer and sickle. The astrologer Ramachandran,
      named by PW-3 Udayachandran to have been accompanying them, has
      also not been examined. Injury no. 4 alone can be attributed to the
c     appellant, Balasubramanian by a hammer. I(cannot be said that death
      was attributable to it alone. He would, therefore, at best be liable under
      Section 304 Pait II, !PC. The three prosecution witnesses are closely
      related to each other. They fall in the category of interested witness. It·
      will not be safe to convict on the basis of the solitary evidence of PW- I
      Lalbahadur Sastri alone. The only material against the appellant,
D
      Balasubramanian is that he drove the car in which the appellants had
      come. PW-14 Murugan, the seizure witness, has turned hostile stating
       that his signature was ~btained at the Police Station. If the attack lasted
      for two minutes, it is difficult to accept that PW-I Lalbahadur Sastri in
       that short time was able to note the registration number of the vehicle in
 E     which the appellants had come, identify each of the appellants along
       with their weapons and the assault made on which part of the body of
       the deceased. The witness had purchased family lands from the deceased
       which was being opposed by the appellants. He has, therefo!·e, falsely
       implicated them to obviate any possibility of opposition from them.
 F           6. In addition to the common submissions on behalf of the other
      two appellai1ts, it was additionally submitted that PW-4 Ramachandran,
      the only independent witness, in his cross-examination, stated that he
      does not know how the deceased and PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri suffered
      injuries. The witness named only two known persons as the assailants at
      the time of his medical exainination, without specifically naming anyone.
 G
             7. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the conviction
      calls for no interference. The deceased was mercilessly assaulted and
      the large number of injuries on his person is sufficient evidence with
      regard to the brutality of the assault. Death occurred as a cumulative
      nature of the head injuries attributed to the appellants. PW-I Lalbahadur
 H
            CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE                                     779
                     [NAVIN SINHA, J.l

 Sastri is an injured witness whose credibility is always very high. The          A
 appellants do not deny his presence or that he was not injured in the
 same occurrence. Merely because the deceased may have been the
 brother-in-law of the witness will not make his evidence doubtful or
 unacceptable. PW-2 Lakshmi is the wife of the deceased. There is no
 reason why she should not be speaking the truth, hiding the name of the
                                                                                  B
 real assailants of her husband in front of her eyes. A conjoint reading of
 the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 reveals that they are eye witnesses of the
 assault and were present in the· field when the appellants came in the
 car fully anned and assaulted without provocation. Motive is apparent
 from the acquittal of the deceased, the previous day and the utterance
 of the appellants that acquittal by the Court would not come to their             c
 rescue.
         8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties,
  and perused the evidence on record. The deceased was the brother of
  appellants Balasubramani um . and Govindaraj. Appellant
  Chandrashekharan is the son of Govindaraj. PW-2 Lakshmi is the wife              D
  of the deceased and PW-3 Udaychandran is the son of her elder sister.
· PW-I is the brother of PW-2 Lakshmi. Relations between the deceased
  and the appellants were far from cordial, whether it be their dissatisfaction
  with the sale of lands by the deceased to PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri or the
  acquittal of the deceased the previous day, in a criminal prosecution
                                                                                   E
  under Section 307 ,324 IPC by appellant Govindaraj. The appellants came
  together armed at the place of occurrence. in a car. Their utterances
  before a merciless assault primarily on the head, that acquittal by the
  Court would bring no succor to the deceased, reflects a state of
  preparedness and is an expression of the intention that they were
  determined to do away with the deceased. The intention to cause death,           F
  alongw'lth motive therefore stands established:
        9. PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri deposed that upon return to the fields
 after delivering milk, he saw a white Maruti car standing.The witness
 therefore had ample opportunity to identify the vehicle including the
 registration number of the same. Additionally, the parties being related          G
 to each other, the witness being acquainted with the vehicle owned by
 the appellants shall be a natural presumption in accordance with human
 behavior. The appellants then assaulted the deceased mercilessly and
 repeatedly on the head. Balasubramanian assaulted with a hammer,
 Chandrasekharan with an "aruval", which is a type of a "billhook" and
                                                                                   H
780             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) 3 S.C.R.


A     Govindaraj with an iron rod. The number of injuries on the head of the
      deceased is sufficient to conclude the nature of murderous assault made
      by all the appellants. No suggestion was given to the witness that he
      was not presentat the time of assault and that he was not injured in the
      same occurrence. It establishes his credibility and reliability as an eye
      witness speaking the truth. Since he was an eye witness to the assault
B
      which took place in broad daylight, and the number of injuries makes it
      evident that it continued for some time, there is nothing suspicious in his
      evidence when he describes the manner, nature and weapon of assault
      by each of the appellants.                     ·
             10. Criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the evidence
c     of a person injured in the same occurrence as it presumes that he was
      speaking the truth unless shown otherwise. Though the law is well
      settled and precedents abound, reference may usefully be made to
      Braltm Swaroop v. State of U.R, (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows:
               "28. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured
D              in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally
               considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with
               an in-built 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."
             I I. The failure of the prosecution to place the injury repo11 of the
E
      witness from the Udumalpet Government Hospital, where he was first
      taken for treatment is a lacuna, but cannot be held to be fatal as to doubt
      the entire prosecution case or shake the credibility of the witness. It
      cannot lead to any conclusion of his injury report, Exhibit P-6 from the
      Ramakrishna Hospital being fabricated. No such suggestion was made
F     by the defence to PW-12 Dr. Krishnaraj. The appellants are named in
      the FIR registered soon after the occurrence. The fact that the witness
      may have stated of assault by two known persons to PW-12, without
      naming any of the appellants is inconsequential. The Doctor was a
      prosecution witness for the limited purpose of the injury report and not a
      prosecution witness with regard to the occurrence. The observations in
G
      Pattipati Ve11kaialt v. State of A.R, (I 985) 4 SCC 80 as follows are
      considered relevant:
              · "I 7. Another argument advanced before us was that although
              PWs I and 2 were supposed to be eyewitnesses, they never cared
             to disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor when the body
H            of the deceased was taken to the hospital. This argument is only
                 CHANDRASEKAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE                                 781
                          [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
,-'
                stated to be rejected. A doctor is not at all concerned as to who A
                committed the offence or whether the person brought to him is a
                criminal or an ordinary person, his primary effort is to save the
                life of the person brought to him and inform the police in medico-
                legal cases. In this state of confusion, PWs I and 2 may not have
                chosen to give details of the murder to the doctor. It is well settled
                                                                                       B
                that doctors before whom dead bodies are produced or injured
                persons are brought, either themselves take the dying declaration
              - or hold the post-mortem immediately and if they start examining
                the informants they are likely to become witnesses of the
                occurrence which is not per!llissible."
                12. The fact that the witness may be related to the deceased by c
        marriage, cannot be sufficient reason to classify him as a related and
        interested witness to reject his testimony. It may only call for greater
        scrutiny and caution in consideration of the same. The animosity of the
        appellants was primarily with the deceased on account of his acquittal
        the previous day, in the criminal p'rosecution. The transfer oflands by D
        the deceased in favour of the witness, being a completed transaction, is
        considered too remote a circumstai1ce for enmity between the appellants
        and the witness as a ground for false implication. In any event, because
        of the reliable ocular evidence available, motive loses much of its
        relevance in the facts of the case.
                 13. PW-1 Lalbahadur Sastri deposed that on the fateful morning E
      - he along with PW-2 Lakshmi and PW-3 Udayachandran and the deceased
         came together to the fields on two motor cycles. Evidently, he did not
         see either of the latter witnesses at that time as they may have been
         behind the car 'parked facing South. PW-2 Lakshmi also deposed that
         they all came to the fields together on two motor cycles along with the F
         deceased. PW- I Lalbahadur Sastri left to deliver milk and returned after
         doing so when the attack took place. The two witnesses at that time
         were in the residential 'shed and came running on hearing cries of distress.
        The fact that PW-2 Lakshmi and PW-3 Udaychandran were also eye
         witnesses to the occurrence therefore stands well established. PW-2
        Lakshmi being the wife of the deceased, we find no reason why she G
        would not be speaking the truth with regard to the real assailants instead
       _of shielding them by false implication. The fact that she had the courage
         to name her own in-laws as the assailants is also a factor which speaks
        of the reliability of her evidence. The Trial Judge has rightly believed
                                                                                     H
782                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A         them to be .eye-witnesses. PW-4 Ramachandran, the astrologer, an
          independent witness, referred to by PW-3 Udaychandran as also having
          been present deposed of the appellants attacking the deceased. The
          fact that in his cross-examination he may have stated that he was not
          aware how the appellant and PW-1 b1Jba.hadur Sastri sustained injuries
          cannot classify him either as a hostile or completely unreliable witness.
·s
                14. The appellants came together armed with a hammer, sickle
         and iron rod respectively. They assaulted the deceased indiscriminately
         on the head repeatedly, a very sensitive part of the human body reflecting
         the individual intention of each one of them to ensure the death of the
         deceased. The number of injuries caused on the head ·speaks for itself
c        regarding the intention of the appellants. There is no need for us to
         consider and examine issues of common intention, in the facts of the
         case.
               15. In view of the clear ocular evidence available, issues with
         regard to the confession statement and recovery of the weapons of
D        assault need not be considered for corroboration.
               16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, find
         no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. Their bail
         bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith for
         serving out their remaining period ofsentence. The appeals are<dismissed.
E

     l   , NidhiJain                                                Appeals dismissed.