Holding

The Court held that the FIR delay was satisfactorily explained, the related injured witnesses' testimony was credible, and the appellant's armed assault with a sickle on the victim's head amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC, so the conviction stands.

Summary

The appellant, Muttaicose@ Subramani, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for assaulting the deceased Natrajan with a sickle after chasing him, during a dispute over land. The defence argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with an undue delay and that the key eye‑witnesses were relatives of the informant, rendering their testimony unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the reasons for the FIR delay, noting the distance to the police station and the victim’s transport to hospital, and found the explanation satisfactory. It also held that injured witnesses who were related to the informant could be trusted after careful scrutiny, as their injuries were proved. Considering the appellant’s armed assault and lack of provocation, the Court concluded that the act amounted to murder, affirming the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR vitiates the prosecution case.
Whether the testimony of injured witnesses who are related to the informant can be disbelieved.
Whether the appellant's conduct constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 427, s. 448, s. 450, s. 452
Tamil Nadu Properties (Damage and Loss) Prevention Acts. 3

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCFIR delaywitness credibilityrelated witnessesintentarmed assaultcriminal appeal

Judgment

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 325

MUTTAICOSE@ SUBRAMANI A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No.1206 of2010)
" JULY03,2017 B

[PRAFULLA C. PANT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Murder - Conviction by courts
below - On appeal, held: appellant was armed with deadly weapon
.and chased the victim-deceased and assaulted twice on his head - C
All the eye witnes$,eS were injured witnesses and injuries on their
person were proved - Though the eye witnesses were related to
deceased, their evidence was credible - Moreove1; there was nothing·
to show that deceased provoked the appellant - Concurrent findings
of courts below regarding commission of offence u/s.302 by the
appellant is, therefore, not interfered with. D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, incident is proved to have
been occurred at 4.30 p.m. on 26.03.2004. On the same day, First
Information Report has been lodged at 11.30 p.m. The distance E.
between police station and place of incident is 6 kms. The
informant who got injured in the incident, was first taken to the
hospital. The delay in lodging F.I.R. was explained. Therefore,
there is no reason to doubt the prosecution story on the ground
of alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report. [Paras
8, 10) [328-G ; 330-A] F
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others v. State of Bihar
(2008) 12 SCC 173 : [2008] 7 SCR 714; Ravinder
Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC
690 : [2001) 2 Suppl. SCR 463 - relied on.
2. As to the testimony of the related witnesses, all the four G
eye witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 were injured eye
witnesses, and injuries on their person were proved on the record.
They cannot be simply disbelieved for the reason that they are
related to informant. No doubt, the evidence of t~e interested or
H
325
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

A related witnesses is required to be scrutinized more carefully,
but in the instant case, even after scrutinizing the testimony of
the injured witnesses with caution, there is no reason to doubt
their testimony. As to the motive or intention on the part of the
A-2 to commit murder of the deceased what is important is that
the appellant (A-2) who was armed with the deadly weapon chased
B
the deceased and assaulted twice on his head. All these facts
taken together clearly showed that the culpable homicide
amounted to murder. There was nothing on the record to show
that the deceased gave any provocation to the appellant (A-~) to
make him to assault the deceased. There is no sufficient reason
C to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court
affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the
appellant (A-2) in respect of offence punishable under Section
302 IPC. [Paras 11, 12) [330-B-D]
Case Law Reference
D [2008) 7 SCR 714 relied on Para9
[2001) 2 Suppl. SCR 463 relied on Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1206 of2010.
E From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2009 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of2007.
V. Ganagraj, Sr. Adv., Mrs. N. Shoba, Sri RamAdhimoolam, Shilp
Vinod: Shobha Ramamoorthy, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Nithya Srinivasan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs. for the
F
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court·was delivered by
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against
judgment and order dated 18.06.2009 passed by High Court ofjudicature
G at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of2007, whereby conviction and
sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, qua appellant
Muttaicose@ Subramani in respect of offence punishable under Section
302 I. P. C., is affirmed.
2. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers
H on record.
MUTTAICOSE@ SUBRAMANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 327
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-I Sundaramurthy A
(informant) is son of PW-2 Chidambaram and PW-3 Smt. Papathi. PW-
4 Yuvaraj and PW-12 Ramasamy are also related to the informant. They
all belong to village Elavanatham. Accused Gurusamy (A-1) and PW-2
owned landed property adjacent to each other. There was a ridge between
their land. Dispute arose between them over planting of coconut trees B
on the common ridge by both sides. On 26.03.2004, at about 9.30 a.m.
appellant (A-2) along with some other co-accused came to the house of
the informant and insisted on holding a Panchayat to settle the dispute to
which the informant told that Panchayat could be held at some common
place, not in his house. On this at about 4.30 p.m. on that day A-2 armed
with 'aruvar (sickle) along with other accused, who were also armed C
with deadly weapons, like stick, iron rod, crowbar etc., came and on
instigation of A-1 they assaulted PW-I, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and
Natrajan (deceased). A-2 (appellant) said to have assaulted with a sickle
twice on the head of the deceased Natrajan after chasing him. Natrajan
(deceased) was the person who had simply attempted to intervene D
between the two fighting groups. Other accused assaulted PW-I to PW-
4 and PW-7. When the crowd gathered on commotion, the accused fled
away. PW-11 Eswaramurthy took all the injured to hospital but Natrajan
had died. Rest of the injured (PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-7) were referred
from Government Hospital, Erode to Lotus Hospital at about 9.00 p.m.
On information from the hospital, Sub-Inspector (PW-27) came and E
recorded statement of PW-1, and registered Crime No. 42 of 2004 in
respect of offences punishable under Sections 14 7, 148, 44 7, 448, 452,
427, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C.
4. During investigation, PW-28 Ravindran who was Inspector of
Police, went to the place of occurrence and inspected the same. He also p
went to the hospital and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of
Natrajan. PW-10 Dr. Parameswaran conducted autopsy on 27.03.2004
on the dead body of the deceased and recorded ante mortem injuries.
He opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage.
PW-8 Dr. Kanagachalakumar recorded the injuries on the person of
injured (eye witnesses). The Investigation Officer after collecting G
evidence and on completion ofinvestigation submitted charge sheet against
all the 14 accused, including appellant Muttaicose@ Subramani.
5. On committal of the case, the Court of Session, after hearing
the parties, framed charge in respect of offences punishable under
H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 6 S.C.R.

A Sections 147, 450, 307, 324, 302 I.P.C. and in respect ofoffence punishable
under Section 3 ofTamil Nadu Properties (Damage and Loss) Prevention
Act against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses, and
proved various documentary evidence on record which was-put to the
accused. They alleged that the evidence against them was false. In
B
defence they got examined DW-1 Dr. Velusamy. The trial court found
thatA-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 guilty of charge of offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. in respect of commission of
murder ofNatrajan. The convicts filed criminal appeal before the High
Court.
c 6. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found that
appellant (A-2) has assaulted the deceased twice on his head, after
chasing him, as such only he is guilty of offence punishable under Section
302 I.P.C. and affirmed the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the trial court against him, and A-1, A-4, and A-
D 5 who had assaulted other witnesses were convicted only under Section
324 I.P.C. and sentenced each one ofthem to imprisonment already
undergone. This appeal is filed by A-2 in respect of whom the conviction
and sentence regarding offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is
upheld by the High Court.

E 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that in the
present case the First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R' .) is delayed,
and contains an afterthought story, by implicating several persons, including
A-2. It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that PW-I, PW-2,
PW-3 and PW-4 are related to each other as such their testimony is not
trustworthy. It is also contended that even otherwise it's a case of
F sudden fight and there could not have been any motive or intention on
the part of the A-2 to commit murder ofNatrajan. It is also pointed out
that A-2 is languishing in jail for last seven years.
8. We have considered the submissions oflearned counsel for the
appellant and reply given'by the learned counsel for the State. In the
G present case incident is proved to have been occurred at 4.30 p.m. on
26.03.2004. On the same day First Information Report has been lodged
at 11.30 p.m. The distance between police station and place of incident
is six (6) kms. Here, it is relevant to mention that the informant who got
injured in the incident, was first taken to the hospital. In the circumstances,
H

..
MUTTAICOSE@ SUBRAMANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 329
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

we do not find any force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the A
appellant that the delay in F.I.R. is not explained.
9. In Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others Vs. State of Biltar',
this court has observed as under:
"16. It is trite thatmere delay in lodging the first information report
is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution. Nevertheless, B
it is a relevant factor of which the court is obliged to take notice
and examine whether any explanation for the delay has been offered
and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If no satisfactory
explanation is forthcoming, an adverse inference may be drawn
against the prosecution. However, in the event, the delay is properly c
and satisfactorily explained; the prosecution case cannot be thrown
out merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Obviously,
the explanation has to be considered in the light of the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case."
10. In Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs. State of Punjab1 , this D
court has observed as under:
- "14. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case
was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was
such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR
lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the E
need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of
time. This kind ofunconversantness is not too uncommon among
urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to
the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate
transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station.
The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin F
of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a
certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for
moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the
requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are
supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically G
impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous
information about the incident."

1
(2008) 12 sec 173
'(2001) 1 sec 690
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

A In view of the above settled position of law, and considering the
explanation of prosecution, we do not find any reason to doubt the
prosecution story on the ground of alleged delay in lodging the First
Information Report.
11. As to the testimony of the related witnesses, it is clear from
B the record that all the four eye witnesses PW- I, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-
4 are injured eye witnesses, and injuries on their person are proved on
the record. They cannot be simply disbelieved for the reason that they
are related to informant. No doubt, the evidence of the interested or
related witnesses is required to be scrutinized more carefully, but in the
present case, even after scrutinizing the testimony of the injured witnesses
c with caution, we do not find any reason to doubt their testimony.
12. As to the motive or intention on the part of the A-2 to commit
murder of the deceased what is important is that the appellant (A-2)
who was armed with the deadly weapon chased the deceased and
assaulted twice on his head. All these facts taken together clearly show
D that the culpable homicide in the present case amounts to murder.
Needless to say that there is nothing on the record to show that the
deceased gave any provocation to the appellant (A-2) to make him to
assault the deceased.
13. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any
E sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
High Court affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the
appellant (A-2) in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
14. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the
same is dismissed.
F

Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.