RAJAGOPALversusMUTHUPANDI @ THAVAKKALAI & ORS.

                                  [2017] 2 S.C.R. 84



    A                              RAJAGOPAL
                                          v.
                   MUTHUPANDI@ THAVAKKALAI & ORS.
                         (Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of2013)
    B                            FEBRUARY 28, 2017
                         [R. F. NARIMAN AND
                    MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
               Penal Code, 1860:
    c         s. 307 r!w ss.149 and 148 - Prosecution under - Attack with
        deadly weapons - By five accused - Causing 12 grave injuries -
        Corroborated by medical evidence - Injured eye-witness in his
        complaint as well as evidence stated the details as to role of each of
        the accused - Identified all the accused - Conviction by trial
        court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held: The direct
    D
        evidence of injured eye-witness is not doubtful - High Court, without
        discrediting such witness, could not have acquitted the accused
        persons - Therefore, the view taken by High Court cannot be said
        to be a possible view -Acquittal order set aside - Conviction order
        restored.
    E
               Criminal Trial:
              Motive - Evidentiary value of - Held: Where there is direct
        evidence, motive does not have to be established.
               Allowing the appeal, the Court
    F          HELD: 1. PW-1 has nncqnivocally stated both in his
)
        complaint and in evidence tendered before the Conrt, which has
        not been shaken in cross, that the five accused persons, after
        shouting and abusing him, assaulted him with deadly weapons.
        Not only has he identified all five, but he has also stated with
    G   great clarity, the role of each one of them as to what exactly each
        one shouted and which weapon was wielded on which specific
        part of his body. There can be absolutely no doubt having regard
        to this direct evidence that from the weapons used and from what
        was shouted and from the nature of the injuries, the common
        object of this unlawful assembly was to kill PW-1. [Para 6] [87-
    H   E-F]
                                          84
  RAJAGOPAL v. MUTHUPANDI @ THAVAKKALAI & ORS.                                85


    · 2. Without discrediting the evidence of PW-1, the injured               A
witness, the judgment of the High Court has crossed the line of
non-interference in acquittals, namely, that it is not a possible
view. [Para SJ f87"DI                                            ·
      3. In view of the direct evidence of PW-1, which has not
been adverted tQc,or disbelieved by the High Court, the delay of              B
eight hours in the filing of the FIR can be disregarded. [Para 7)
[87-G, 88-A]
      4. Motive does not have to be established where there is
direct evidence. Given the brutal assault made on PW-1 by
criminals, the fact that witnesses have turned hostile can also cut
both ways, as is well known in criminal jurisprudence. [Para 9]               c
[88-D-E]
      5. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not a
possible view and the acquittal of the five accused persons is set
aside and the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by
the Trial Court is restored. [Para 10] [88-F]                                 D
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1582 of2013
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2010 of the High Court
of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. No. 268 of 2005.
      V. Prabhakar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the Appellant.              E
      V. Kathirvelu, Sr. Adv., P. V. Yogeswaran, Ms. V. Susheatha,
Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. F. NARIMAN, J. l. The facts in the present case are as
                                                                              F
follows:-
i) Five accused persons, armed with deadly ~eapons, attacked and
injured Rajagopal (PW-I) at about 2.30 p.m. on 06.11.1999, who was
standing at the Kandavilai bus stop, causing at least 12 grave injuries
which involved fracture of his skull, fracture of the bones of both legs as
well as on the wrist. ,Subsequently, PW-I suffered amputation of both         G
legs as a consequence of the attack suffered by him.
ii) The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses, and Rajagopal
(PW-1 ), the Complainant himself, has, both in his complaint and evidence,
(which was not shaken in cross-examination), stated in detail as to the
role of each of the accused.                                                  H
86            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A    iii) fr may be mentioned he~e that allthe accused were identified by hiin,
     and accused No. I abused him and stated "hack him to death.· Let him
     die and get lost." Accused No.2 hacked at his left arm left hand elbow·-·-
     with a sickle after which accused No. I hit him on his head with a sickle
     and further injured him by hacking at the left lateral malleolus. Accused
     No.3, another son of accused No.I, hacked at PW-1 's right loin and
B
     back and also injured him by hacking at his right lateral malleolus. Accused
     No.4 hit his chin with a sickle, and accused No.5 ltackeefiifhis ring '.ind
     middle fingers on the left hand and ring finger on the right hand with a
     sickle.
     iv) The medical dvidence corroborates the fact that there were twelve
c    serious injuries together with the skull bone cracked and legs and hands
     fractured. PWs 3,4,5,8 and 14, who were examined to speak of the
     arrest, confession and recovery of weapons from the accused, have
     turned hostile. Even PW-6, the sister of PW- I who was engaged to
     speak on behalf of the prosecution as to the motive for the alleged attack,
D    has turned hostile. PWs 7 and 13, witnesses to the rna:hazar, have also
     turned hostile.
     v) The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli,
     convicted all the five accused person~ under Section 148 and Section
     307. read with 149 of the LP.C. and sentenced.them to seven years
E    imprisonment with fine ofRs.5,000/ each.
     vi) The High Court has reverse4 the finding of the Trial Court, giving
     five reasons as to why in a case, like the present one, the conviction
     should be upset. This is despite the fact that PW- I, the complainant, an
     injured_ eye witness who was lived to tell the tale, had deposed as
F    af9resaid.
            2. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     appellant-Complainant, has addressed us. His argument is that the five
     circumstances mentioned by the High Court not only have answers to
     each of them which are largely given in the Trial Court judgment, but
G    has also argued that without disturbing the evidence of the injured eye
     witness, the High Court could not possibly have come to the conclusion
     that the five persons convicted by the irial Court ought to be acquitted.
            3. According to the learned counsel, PW-I has, in his evidence,
     identified each one of the accused and has stated each one's specific
     role in injuring him. Lethal weapons have been used, and it is obvious
H
                     -   . -·-




      RAJAGOPAL v. MUTHUPANDI @ THAVAKKALAI & ORS.                                   87.
                     [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

   ·that the intention was to kill PW-I. Fortunately, for him, since the incident    A
    took pface at 2.30 p.m. in the afternoon, in a busy place, and because he
    shout.ed at the accused and there were people around, the five accused
    ran away.
          -4. On behalf of the five accused persons, we have heard Mr.
    Kathirvelu, the learned senior counsel, who has argued that each one of          B
    the five circumstances mentioned by the High Court, particularly, the
 .• point of delay would go to show that there were a large number of
    lapses on the part of the prosecution and that, therefore, the five
    circumstances mentioned by the High Court would at the very least lead
    to there being a reasonable doubt. We were also told that, this being a
    case of acquittal, since the High Court's view was a possible view, we           c
    should not interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
            5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, we are
     of the view that without discrediting the evidence of PW-I, the injured
     witness, the judgment of the High Court has crossed the line of non
, ___Interference in acquittals, namely, that it is not a possible view. Given the   D
     direct evidence of PW-I, as has been pointed out by learned counsel
     appearing for the Complainant, the impugned judgment cannot be
     sustained.
           6. As has been stated earlier, PW-I has unequivocally stated both
    in his complaint and in evidence tendered before the Court, which has            E
    not b.een shaken in cross, that the five accused persons, after shouting
    and abusing him, assaulted him with deadly weapons. Not only has he
    identified all five, but he has also stated with great clarity the role of
    each one of them as to what exactly each one shouted and which weapon
    was wielded on which specific part of his body. There can be absolutely          F
    n.o doubt having-regard to this direct evidence that from the weapons
    used and from what was shouted and from the nature of the injuries, the
    common object of this unlawful assembly was to kill PW- I.
            7. However, according to the High Court, the FIR was registered
    after some delay namely, at 10.45 p.m. at Radhapuram Police Station, G
    that is roughly eight hours after the incident. The Trial Court has adverted .
    to the reason for the delay as being information and communication loss.
    The information first went from Kottar Government Hospital to the Kottar
    Police Station and thereafter to the Radhapuram Police Station. The
    finding of the Trial Court is that the reason forthe delay is on the part of
    the police officials. Whether this is in fact so is not necessary for us to H
88              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A      decide finally, inasmuch as the direct evidence of PW-I, which has not
       been adverted to or disbelieved by the High Court, is sufficient for us to
     . disregard this del~y of eight hours in the filing of the FIR.
             8. We were also told that the page of the General Diary relating to
      06.09.1999 was torn. This, by itself, leads us nowhere. The High Court
B     adverts to the fact that the complaint does not bear any communication
      that the concerned officer recorded the same, and that it bears the
      endorsement of the S.I. Pandian. Here again, the Trial Court dubs this
      as a mistake by stating that instead of saying "received by me and
      registered a case" it was "'stated "recorded by me and registered a
      case". Such a mistake in any case would not be fatal given the fact that
c     PW-I has himself given direct evidence of the incident. Points 3 to S
      mentioned in the High Court, namely, that nobody has bee1i examined
      from residences and shops nearby; and that no taxi driver has been
      examined since PWs I and 2 claim to have gone to hospital in a taxi; and
      that the motor cycles on which the accused drove are not..seized, all
D     pales into insignificance once direct evidence is available.
             9. Equally, it is well established that motive does not have to be
      established where there is direct evidence. Given the brutal assauli made
      on PW-I by criminals, the f~ct that witnesses have turne~ hostile can
      also cut both ways, as is well known in criminal jurisprudence.
E            I 0. Given the fact that stares one in the face, namely, that the
      High Court has not at all dealt with the direct evidence of PW-I and
      given the fact that such evidence has stood the test of cross-examination,
      we are constrained to observe that the view taken by the High Court is
      not a possible view and we therefore set aside the acquittal of the five
F     accused persons and restore the conviction and sentence imposed upon
      them by the Trial Court.
              11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
            12. The respondents are directed to surrender before the
      concerned Court within a period of two weeks from today to serve out
G     the remainder of sentence imposed by the Trial Court.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                           Appeal a!IO\\'Cd.



H