MOOKKIAHversusSTATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

                    [2013) 2 S.C.R. 881


                         MOOKKIAH                                 A
                              v.
 STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL
                       NADU
         (Criminal Appeal No. 2085 of 2008)
                                                                  B
                    JANUARY 04, 2013
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Prosecution under -
Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - Held: The C
evidence of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence support
the prosecution case - There was no delay in lodging FIR or
dispatching the same to Magistrate Court - FSL report not
doubtful - High Court rightly reversed the order of acquittal and
convicted the accused.                                            D

    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal
against acquittal - Interference with - Power of High Court -
Scope of - Held: High Court, as an appellate court, even while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, entitled to re-         E
appreciate the entire evidence - Appeal.

     Witness - Related witness - Evidentiary value - Held:
Merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot be
eschewed - However, it is duty of the court to analyze the same
cautiously and scrutinize it with other corroborative evidence.   F

    The appellants - A1 and A2 were prosecuted for
having caused death of one person. The prosecution
case was that A-2 harboured enemity against the
deceased on account that the deceased had solicited his G
wife to have illicit intercourse with him. A-1 also had
previous enemity with the deceased. Both the accused,
in furtherance of their common intention to kill the
deceased, attacked him and the deceased died on the
                             881                                  H
    882      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   spot. PWs 1, 4 and 5 were the eye-witnesses to the
    incident. PW-1 lodged the complaint. Trial Court acquitted
    both the accused. High Court reversed the acquittal order
    and convicted them u/s. 302/34 IPC.

8         Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 The trial court failed to take note of relevant
  aspects and committed a grave error in rejecting the
  reliable materials placed by the prosecution. The High
  Court as appellate court, analyzed the evidence as
C provided in s. 378 Cr.P.C. and rightly reversed the order
  of acquittal and found A-1 and A-2 guilty of offence u/s.
  302 r/w. s. 34 IPC for murdering the deceased in pursuance
  of their common intention. [Para 20] [898-A-C]

o     1.2 There is no reason to disbelieve the version of
  PW1-complainant, who was the eye-witness. The trial
  court rejected his evidence because of his relationship.
  Merely because a witness is related, his evidence cannot
  be eschewed. On the other hand, it is the duty of the
E court to analyze his evidence cautiously and scrutinize
  the same with other corroborative evidence. The High
  Court has rightly relied on his evidence. [Para 12] [893-
    B·C]
       1.3 Though PW-4 turned hostile at one stage, there
F is no reason to reject his entire evidence as
  unacceptable. It was he who accompanied PW-1 and
  noticed that the accused were attacking the deceased by·
  use of bill hooks. Even though he did not support the
  prosecution case in its entirety, his version strengthens
G the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5. [Para 13] [893-D-E]
      1.4 The evidence of PW-5 corroborates the statement
  made by PW-1 in all aspects. It shows that PWs 1, 4 and
  5 noticed the accused causing fatal injuries on the
H deceased by use of aruvals (billhooks). It also shows that
 MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 883
             POLICE, TAMIL NADU
 all of them went to the Police Station and PW-1 made a        A
 complaint and other two attested the contents thereof.
 The High Court has rightly relied on the evidence of PWs
 1 and 5. [Para 15] [894-D-E]
       1.5 The injuries observed by the doctor (PW2), who
                                                               B
 conducted post-mortem of the body of the deceased, tally
 with the narration given by PW-1 in the complaint as well
 as in his evidence and the evidence of PW-5. The
 doctor's opinion that the death of the deceased might
 have occurred 28-3P hours prior to the post mortem also
 tallies with the prosecution version. The evidence of PWs     C
 1 and 5 coupled with the version in the complaint (Exh.P-
 1) would state that the occurrence took place at 5.30 a.m.
 as such, the timings mentioned by the doctor, and other
 witnesses tally with the narration. [Para 17] [896-F-H]
                                                               D
     1.6 As regards the plea of dealy in filing the FIR, on
 perusal of the details placed by the prosecution, the High
 Court rightly observed that it cannot be presumed that
 there was inordinate delay in reaching the FIR to the
 Magistrate Court. Also in view of the version of the Police   E
 Constable (PW-9), there is no delay at all in either
 registering the FIR or dispatching the same to the
 Magistrate Court. [Para 18] [897-B-C, E-F]

       1.7 In absence of blood stains on the M.Os I, II and
 Ill, namely, aruvals (bill hooks) and dress, in the FSL       F
 report, the same cannot be doubted when they were
 duly recovered in the presence of witnesses. It was
 explained that since these objects were lying on the earth
 and by efflux of time, no blood was found by the
 laboratory. [Para 19] [897-G-H]                               G
       2. The High Court, as the first appellate court, even
• while dealing with an· appeal against acquittal, was also
  entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need
  be, re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while          H
    884      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 2 S.C.R


A choosing to interfere, only the court should find an
  absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the
  evidence on record and not merely because the High
  Court could take one more possible or a different view
  only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent
B and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned,
  no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged
  in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one
  was against conviction or the other against an acquittal.
  [Para 4] [887-F-H; 888-A]
c      State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC
  573: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 480; State of Madhya Pradesh
  vs. Ramesh and Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 786: 2011 (5) SCR 1;
  Mrinal Das and Ors. vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479:
  2011 (14) SCR 411; Rohtash vs. Stateof Haryana (2012) 6
D SCC 589: 2012 (6) SCR 62 ; Murugesan and Ors. vs. State
  Through Inspector of Police 2012 (10) SCC 383; Sheo
  Swarup vs. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); Chandrappa
  and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: 2007 (2)
  SCR 630 - relied on.
E
                        Case Law Reference:
          2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 480 Relied on        Para 4
          2011 (5) SCR 1          Relied on        Para 5
F         2011 (14) SCR 411       Relied on        Para 6
          2012 (6) SCR 62         Relied on        Para 7
          2012 (1 O) sec 383      Relied on        Para 8
G         AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)     Relied on        Para 8
          2007 (2) SCR 630        Relied on        Para 8
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal'Appeal
    No. 2085 of 2008.
H
MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 885
            POLICE, TAMIL NADU

     From the Judgment & Order dated 25.01.2007 of the High        A
Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1137
of 1998.
    S. Nanda Kumar, R. Satish Kumar, Parivesh Singh, Anjali
Chauhan, V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants.
                                                                   B
    S. Guru Krishna Kumar, AAG State of TN, M. Yogesh
Kanna, A. Prasanna Venkat for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred           C
against the final judgment and order dated 25.01.2007 passed
by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1137 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the
High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside
the order of acquittal of appellants herein dated 24.08.1998
passed by the llnd Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in       D
Sessions Case No. 264 of 1996.
     2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as under:
     (a) Uluppadi Parai is a small village in Ambasamudhram        E
Taluk within Kallidaikurichi Police Station. The appellants
herein (A-1 ) and (A-2) and the deceased were all the residents
of the same hamlet situated in the aforesaid village. The
residents of that hamlet had a nearby place as open air latrine
which was situated near a water body.                              F
      (b) The deceased Ramaiah, in this case, was the son-in-
law of Ramaiah (PW-1), who also had the same name as that
of the deceased. Parvathi-daughter of PW-1, was married to
the deceased-Ramaiah. 25 days prior to the incident, when
she was staying at the residence of PW-1, the deceased-            G
Ramaiah solicited the wife of Subbiah (A-2) to have illicit
intercourse with him and A-2, after coming to know of such fact,
harboured enmity in his heart against the deceased. The
deceased was also having previous enmity with Mookkiah (A-
1), who was residing in the same village.                          H
     886       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


.A      (c) On 12.05.1992, at about 5.30 a.m., when the deceased
  Ramaiah went to the said open air latrine to attend to the calls
  of the nature, A-1 and A-2, in furtherance of their common
  intention to murder Ramaiah, dealt blows on him using aruval
  (billhooks), thereby killed him on the spot itself and fled away
B from the scene. However, on the very same day, at about
  05:30 hours, when Ramaiah (PW-1), the father-in-law of the
  deceased, Sudalaimuthu (PW-5) and Shanmugam (PW-4)
  were returning after pouring water into their field, they heard the
  cries of Ramaiah, son-in-law of PW-1, shouting "Don't attack,
c Don't attack". They immediately rushed to the spot and saw
  that the accused were attacking the deceased-Ramaiah on his
  head, neck, shoulder and back with their aruval and on seeing
  them, they fled away. Ramaiah (PW-1) and Sudalaimuthu (PW-
  5) both witnessed the ghastly crime and despite they shouted
D at the assailants not to perpetrate the gruesome act, the
  accused accomplished their task of murdering the accused.

      (d) Thereupon, PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and one Kanaka Raj,
  went to the Kallidaikurichi P.S. and PW-1 lodged a complaint
  against both the accused persons which was registered as
E Crime No. 173 of 1992 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
  Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

          (e) After investigation, both the accused persons were
     arrested and charges were framed against them under Section
F    302 read with Section 34 of IPC and the case was committed
     to the Court of Session which was numbered as Sessions
     Case No. 264 of 1996.

       (f) By order dated 24.08.1998, the trial Court, after giving
  the benefit of doubt, acquitted both the accused of the offences
G with which they were charged. Being aggrieved by the judgment
  of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal being Criminal
  Appeal No. 1137 of 1998 before the Madurai Bench of the
  Madras High Court.

H          (g) The High Court, after examining all the materials, by .
MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 887
   POLICE, TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
order dated 25.01.2007, reversed the judgment of acquittal and      A
found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous
imprisonment (RI) for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each,
in default, to further undergo RI for 6 months.
                                                                    B
    (h) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High
Court, A-1 and A-2 (appellants herein) preferred an appeal
before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

    3. Heard Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants-accused and Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned            C
senior counsel and AAG for the respondent-State.

Interference in Appeal against Acquittal:
     4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and 0
defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges
leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court,
by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted
the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC
and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very E
much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let
 us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal
filed against the order of acquittal This Court in a series of
decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate F
 court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against
 acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through
and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while
choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute
assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record G
and not merely because the High Court could take one more
possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the
matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal
is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are
envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because H
    888       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal.
  [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5
  sec 5731
         5. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh and Another,
8   (2011) 4 sec 786, this Court, while considering the scope and
    interference in appeal against acquittal held:

          "15. We are fully alive of the fact that we are dealing with
          an appeal against acquittal and in the absence of
          perversity in the said judgment and order, interference by
c         this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not
          warranted. It is settled proposition of law that the appellate
          court being the final court of fact is fully competent to ·
          reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take
          its own decision. Law does not prescribe any limitation,
D         restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the
          appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion
          keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in
          favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is
          available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every
E         person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
          guilty by the competent court and there can be no quarrel
          to the said legal proposition that if two reasonable views
          are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
          appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal."
F
          6. In Mina/ Das and Others vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 9
    sec 479, while reiterating the very same position, one of us,
    P. Sathasivam, J. held:

          "14. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court
G         to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
          is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate
          court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial
          court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with
          the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the
H         duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence
MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 889
   POLICE, TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
    on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons          A
    set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal
    is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and
    substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly
    unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference.
    When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread          B
    the material evidence or has ignored material documents
    like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the
    appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the
    trial court depending on the materials placed."

     7. In Rohtash vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589,            C
this Court held:

    "27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal
    recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the
    judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that   D
    only in exceptional cases where there are compelling
    circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be
    perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order
    of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind
    the presumption of innocence of the accused and further           E
    that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of
     innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other
    view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good
     reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v.
     Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 and Govindaraju v. State,             F
    (2012) 4 sec 122)"

     8. In a recent decision in Murugesan & Ors. vs. State
Through Inspector of Police, 2012 (10) SCC 383, one of us
R~njan Gogoi, J. elaborately considered the broad principles
of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378        G
of the Code of Criminal Procedure while hearing the appeal
against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge. After
adverting to the principles of law laid down in Sheo Swarup vs.
King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) and series of subsequent
pronouncements in para 21 summarized various principles as            H
    890       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   found in para 42 of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Kamataka,
    (2007) 4 sec 415 as under:

          "21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had
          emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo
          Swarup1 is to be found in para 42 of the Report in
B
          Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The same may,
          therefore, be usefully noticed below: (SCC p. 432)

          "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view,
          the following general principles regarding powers of the
c         appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
          order of acquittal emerge:

                (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
                reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
D               which the order of acquittal is founded.

                 (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
                 limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
                 such power and an appellate court on the evidence
                 before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
E                questions of fact and of law.

                 (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and
                 compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds',
                 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions',
F                'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail
                 extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
                 against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
                 the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise
                 the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
G                acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
                 review the evidence and to come to its own
                 conclusion.

                 (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
                 that in case of acquittal, there is double
H                presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 891
   POLICE, TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
            presumption of innocence is available to him under       A
            the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
            that every person shall be presumed to be innocent
            unless he is proved guilty by a conipetent court of
            law. Secondly, the accused having  I
                                                    secured his
           .acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further   B
            reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
            court.

            (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
            the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
            court should not disturb the finding of acquittal C
            recorded by the trial court."

                                           (emphasis supplied}

    9. 'With the above principles, let us analyze the reasoning      D
and ultimate conclusion of the High Court in interfering with the
order of acquittal and awarding imprisonment for life.

     10. Among the materials placed and relied on by the
prosecution, complaint Exh.P-1, evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and
5 are relevant.                                                      E

Complaint (Exh.P-1):

     11. The complaint Exh. P-1dated12.05.1992 was made
by Ramaiah (PW-1 ). In the complaint, it was stated that as his      F
daughter-Parvathi was pregnant, she was brought to his house
for delivery and a female child was born to her 25 days back.
After delivery, her daughter stayed in his house with her child
and his son-in-law Ramaiah stayed with his parents. It was
further stated that on 12.05.1992, in the early morning, about       G
05.30 hours, when he was returning alongwith Sudalaimuthu
and Shanmugam after pouring water to the plantation, at that
time, they heard the shouting of his son-in-law "Don't kill me".
On hearing the same, they rushed towards the spot and noticed
that Subbiah (A-2) was having a big aruval (bill hook) in his
                                                                     H
    892     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 2 S.C.R.


A hand and Mookkiah (A-1) was holding a small aruval and were
  attacking on the face and back of Ramaiah-the deceased.
  When all the three went there shouting "Don't cut, Don't cut", at
  that time, Subbiah (A-2) and Mookkiah (A-1) ran towards
  eastern direction. They noticed cut injuries on neck, shoulder
B back and head of his son-in-law and blood was oozing from
  the cut wounds. They also noticed that he was dead.
  Thereafter, all the three persons informed Alagamuthu, father
  of Ramaiah and the Village Headman about the same and later
  they along with others saw the dead body of Ramaiah. It was
c further stated that approx. one week before, Subbiah (A-2) met
  him and warned that his son-in-law Ramaiah called his
  (Subbiah's) wife Mukkammal for sex and he threatened that he
  won't spare him and as per the say, Subbiah and Mookkiah
  murdered his son-in-law Ramaiah. Thereafter, he along with
D Sudalaimuthu, Shanmugam, Kanaka Raj came to Kallidaikurichi
  P.S. at about 08.00 hours and informed the same which was
  recorded on 12.05.1992 at 08.06 hours and registered as
  Crime No. 173/1992 under Section 302 IPC. A perusal of Exh.
  P-1 complaint discloses the full narration of the incident by PW-
E 1 and the persons accompanied him and motive for murdering
  the deceased.

    Evidence of PW-1:

       12. Ramaiah (PW-1), who is none else than the father-in-
F law of the deceased, even in his evidence has narrated before
  the court what he had stated in the complaint (Exh. P-1). He
  also identified M.O. I and M.0.11 Aruvals (billhooks). He further
  stated that with M.O. I small aruval, the accused Mookkiah was
  attacking and M.O. II-big aruval was used by accused Subbiah.
G He also noticed a pair of chappals (M.O. Ill), underwear (M.O.
  IV) near the corpse of his son-in-law. He also stated that it was
  he who preferred complaint to the police. The same was
  recorded by the Police Officer and attested by Kanaka Raj,
  Sudalaimuthu and Shanmugam. He also explained the
H statement made by Subbiah (A-2) one week prior to the
MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 893
   POLICE, TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
incident warning him that his son-in-law called his wife for sex   A
and he won't spare him for this. Even in lengthy cross-
examination, he withstood his stand and reiterated that he along
with two others saw the accused murdering his son-in-law.
There is no reason to disbelieve his version. Though the trial
Court has rejected his evidence because of his relationship,       B
we are of the view that merely because a witness is related,
his evidence cannot be eschewed. On the other hand, it is the
duty of the Court to analyze his evidence cautiously and
scrutinize the same with other corroborative evidence. The
High Court has rightly relied on his evidence and we fully agree   c
with the course adopted by the High Court in relying upon his
evidence ..

Evidence of PW-4:
     13. Though Shanmugam (PW-4) turned hostile at one             D
stage, there is no reason to reject his entire evidence as
unacceptable. It was he who accompanied PW-1 at the early
hours and noticed that the accused were attacking the
deceased by use of bill hooks. Similar to PW-1 and PW-5,
PW-4 reiterated that he accompanied them after pouring water       E
to their banana fields. Even tnough he did not support the
prosecution case in its entirety, his version strengthen the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-5.

Evidence of PW-5:
                                                                   F
     14. Sudalaimuthu (PW-5) is a resident of Ulappadi Parai.
In his evidence, he has stated that 6 years back, on Chithirai
month night, at about 8.00 p.m., when he was proceeding to
banana thope to pass water, he noticed Ramaiah (PW-1) and
Shanmugam (PW-4) were also passing water. After                    G
completing the work at the early morning, roughly 05.30 hours,
while returning back along with PW-1 and PW-4, he heard a
noise from the Southern side Ridge, namely, "Don't cut, Don't
cut". On hearing the sound, all the three rushed to that place
and noticed that Subbiah (A-2) and Mookkiah (A-1) were cutting     H
    894       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   the deceased Ramaiah. He further stated that on seeing them
    the accused ran away from the spot and they found that
    Ramaiah was done to death. They reported the incident to
    Nattammai Kanak Raj in the village and, thereafter, went to the
    P .S. around 08.00 o'clock and Ramaiah (PW-1) gave a
B   statement to the police. In the said statement, viz., Exh. P-1,
    he also signed as a witness. He identified his signature in
    Ex.P-1. He was also present when the police inspected the
    scene of occurrence and during the course of inquest. In the
    cross-examination, he reiterated what he had stated in the
c   Chief-Examination.

          15, A perusal of the evidence of PW-5 clearly shows that
    it corroborates with the statement made by PW-1 in all aspects.
    It also shows that PWs 1, 4 and 5 went to their banana fields
    to pour water during the said night and while returning back
D   after finishing the work at around 5.30 a.m., they noticed the
    accused causing fatal injuries on the deceased by use of
    aruvals (billhooks). It also shows that all of them went to the
    P.S. and PW-1 made a complaint and other two attested the
    contents of Exh.P-1. The High Court has rightly relied on the
E   evidence of PWs 1 and 5 and on going through their entire
    statement, we fully agree with the course adopted by the High
    Court.

    Evidence of PW-2:
F         16. Dr. Tmt. Bhanumathi, (PW-2) who conducted post
    mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ramaiah was
    examined as PW-2. The post mortem report has been marked
    as Exh. P-3. In Exh.P-3, the doctor has noted the following
    injuries:
G
          "Injuries:

          (1) An incised wound extending from lower part of right
          cheek, above mandible, directed downwards to the middle
          of back of neck; obliquely placed and of sixe 14X6X6
H
MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 895
   POLICE, TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    ems. Blood vessels, muscles, C3, C4, vertebra cut, head           A
    partially hanging and blood clots present.

    (2) An incised wound on centre of forehead close to mid line
    extending to middle of scalp vertical in direction directed
    upwards and backwards size 14X4X6 ems. Underlying                 B
    bone cut and brain matter coming out through the wound.

    (3) An incised wound extending from middle of right side
    of back to right side of shoulder of size 20X6X6 ems.
    Oblique in direction, overlapping cut injuries on inferur
    border of wound, muscles, blood vessels cut, blood clots C
    present. Right scapula injured and dislocated.

    (4) An incised wound on right side of lower part of back
    below injury no.3, oblique in direction 12X4X2 ems. Blood
    vessels, muscles cut and blood clots present.                     o
    (5) An incised wound horizontal in direction 18X6X8 ems.
    Extending from left lower part of back of left waist fort side.

    (6) An incised wound above injury no.5 oblique in direction
    on left side of lower part of back to right side crossing         E
    spine 12X6X4 ems. Blood vessels, muscles cut in the
    same direction.

    (7) An incised wound on upper third of upper arm right, on
    lateral side extending to back of 12 X 4 shoulder, oblique        F
    in direction, blood vessels, muscles cut.

    (8) An incised would on right upper arm, upper third on
    medical aspect, skin depth 5 X 2 ems. obliquely placed."

      17. As rightly pointed out by the State counsel, the cut G
injuries observed by the doctor tally with the narration given by
PW-1 in Exh.P-1 as well as in his evidence and the evidence
of PW-5. The doctor also opined that the death of the
deceased might have occurred 28-30 hours prior to the post
mortem. It is not in dispute that the doctor commenced the post H
    896      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A :nortem on 13.05.1992 at 10.30 hours and as per the
  prosecution case, the death of the deceased occurred at 05.30
  a.m. on 12.05.1992. A perusal of these details clearly show
  that the opinion given by the doctor tallies with the prosecution
  version that the death might have occurred 28-30 hours prior
B to the post mortem. The trial Court, taking note of the evidence
  of PW-2 that there were around 300 grams semi digested food
  particles (rice) in the stomach of the deceased, disbelieved the
  time of occurrence as projected by the prosecution. It is true
  that PW-2, while deposing before the Court, answered in the
c cross-examination that the death might have occurred 34 hours
  prior to her performing the post mortem and the partly
  undigested rice would show that rice might have been
  consumed by the deceased 2-3 hours before his death.
  However, the Investigation Officer (PW-11), during the cross-
D examination, highlighted that during the course of his
  investigation, he ascertained from the father of the deceased
  that the deceased consumed food at 11.00 p.m. during the said
  intervening night. As rightly observed by the High court, since
  the parties are hailing from a remote village, the villagers might
E take food even at odd hours after finishing certain work in their
  fields and it cannot be precisely predict based on the
  undigested food particles alone. The High Court has adverted
  to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition
  and after noting all the relevant details has rightly concluded that
  the observation of the doctor relating to the injuries and her
F general opinion at the time of death which occurred 28-30
  hours tally with the narration of eye-witnesses and concluded
  that in such a case mere inference of the doctor with reference
  to undigested food particles could not threw the prosecution
  case. We fully agree with the discussion and the ultimate
G conclusion on this aspect by the High Court. The evidence of
  PWs 1 and 5 coupled with the version in Exh.P-1 would state
  that the occurrence took place at 5.30 a.m. while the deceased
  was passing stool, as such, the timings mentioned by the
  doctor, occurrence and other witnesses tally with the narration.
H Accordingly, we reject the contention raised by the counsel for
 MOOKKIAH v. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF 897
    POLICE, TAMIL NADU [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the appellants with reference to existence of undigested             A
particles n the post mortem by PW-2.

Other objections:

       18. Though an argument was advanced that there was
 delay in filing the FIR in the Court of the Magistrate, a perusal   9
 of the details placed by the prosecution show that the
 occurrence took place at 05.30 a.m. on 12.05.1992 and the FIR
 was registered on the same day at 08.00 hrs. and the
 Magistrate received the FIR on the same day at 02.00 p.m. As
 rightly observed by the High Court, it cannot be presumed that      C
 there was inordinate delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate
 Court. Further, it has come in evidence that Kallidaikurichi P.S.
 is situated at a distance which could be covered by cycle in
 45 minutes and Abdul Rahman (PW-9), Police Constable
 Grade-I, who was attached with Kallidaikurichi P.S. at the          D
 relevant time has explained in his evidence that he took the
 complaint (Exh.P-1) and the FIR to the Magistrate Court and
 reached at around 10.00 or 10.15 a.m. but by that time
 Magistrate. Court's sitting was commenced. PW-9 further
 explained that when he approached the Head Clerk, he                E
·informed PW~9 to hand it over to the Magistrate after the sitting
 hour was over as it happened to be an express FIR. There is
 no reason to disbelieve the version of the Police Constable
 (PW-9) and we hold that absolutely, there is no delay at all in
 either registering the FIR or dispatching the same to the           F
 Magistrate Court. ·

     19. We have already noticed the motive as spoken to by
PW-1 both in his evidence as well as in Exh.P-1. It was pointed
out that no blood stains were noticed in the M.Os I, II and Ill,
namely, aruvals (bill hooks) and dress in the FSL report. It was     G
explained that since these objects were lying on the earth and
by efflux of time, no blood was found by the laboratory because
of which the same cannot be doubted when the same were duly
recovered in the presence of witnesses.
                                                                     H
    898      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A      20. In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied
  that the trial Court failed to take note of relevant aspects and
  committed a grave error in rejecting the reliable materials
  placed by the prosecution. The High Court as appellate court,
  analyzed the evidence as provided in Section 378 of the Code
B and rightly reversed the order of acquittal and found A-1 and
  A-2 guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34
  IPC for murdering Ramaiah in pursuance of their common
  intention and awarded sentence of life imprisonment. We fully
  agree with the said conclusion.
c       21. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is
    dismissed.

    K.K.T.                                    Appeal dismissed.