Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by three convicted accused, Postman Vengaisamy (A-1), Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), and Vellachamy (A-15), upholding their conviction under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of Chinnapariaiyah and for causing injuries to Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2). The case arose from a village feud between Kurunthankulam and Nathakulam villages. On April 8, 2003, the deceased and others were attacked after a money dispute. On April 26, 2003, the accused, armed with swords, surrounded the deceased, his son Irulandi, and Ramar. Thalaiyaripandi (A-11) exhorted the others to kill the deceased, and a coordinated attack ensued, resulting in the deceased's death and injuries to Irulandi and Ramar. The trial court convicted six accused, and the High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court found that the testimony of injured witnesses Irulandi and Ramar was credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The court rejected the argument that the witnesses were introduced or that their statements were contradictory, noting that minor contradictions due to passage of time do not affect credibility. The court also held that the common object to commit murder was clearly established by the exhortation and the use of swords. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was held inapplicable as the witnesses were wholly reliable. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Object - Section 149 IPC - The court upheld the conviction of three appellants for murder and attempt to murder, holding that the common object to kill the deceased was established by the exhortation of A-11 and the coordinated attack with swords by the accused. The testimony of injured witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) was found credible and corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 9-13)
B) Evidence Law - Injured Witness - Credibility - The court held that the testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to great weight and cannot be discarded merely because they are interested witnesses. The lengthy cross-examination did not shake their credibility. (Paras 9-11)
C) Criminal Law - Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus - Applicability in India - The court reiterated that the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has no application in India. However, a rule of caution is required while examining statements of witnesses whose part statement is not found truthful. In this case, the witnesses were found wholly reliable. (Paras 7, 12)
D) Criminal Law - Common Object - Inference from Weapons and Manner of Attack - The court distinguished Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Wagh, holding that where accused are armed with swords and act on exhortation to kill, common object to commit murder can be inferred. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence, and whether the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of A-1, A-11, and A-15 under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the findings of the courts below.
Law Points
- Section 149 IPC
- Common Object
- Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus
- Credibility of Injured Witnesses
- Corroboration by Medical Evidence
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2010
Postman Vengaisamy & Ors.
State Represented by Inspector of Police & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and attempt to murder.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Chinnapariaiyah and for causing injuries to Irulandi and Ramar, arising from a village feud over a money dispute.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal Sessions Judge, Virudunagar District at Srivilliputtur) convicted A-1, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, and A-15 under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and A-11 also under Section 506 (Part II) IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence.
Whether the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies to discredit the prosecution witnesses.
Whether the common object to commit murder was established.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that injured witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) were introduced by the prosecution and their injuries were simple and not proved to be inflicted by the accused.
Appellants contended that all prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses, hence their testimony cannot be believed.
Appellants argued that statements of material witnesses were contradictory and lacked corroboration.
Appellants relied on Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan to argue that statements cannot be split to grant benefit to some co-accused while maintaining conviction of others.
Appellants relied on Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Wagh to submit that common object to commit murder was not proved.
Appellants relied on Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue that the rule of caution applies when part of a witness's statement is not truthful.
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of injured witnesses is credible and entitled to great weight, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. Minor contradictions due to passage of time do not affect credibility. The common object to commit murder can be inferred from the exhortation to kill and the coordinated attack with deadly weapons. The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has no application in India; each case must be decided on its own facts.
Judgment Excerpts
The oral testimony of material witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) is corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the deceased is made out from the incident which happened on April 8, 2003.
Some contradictions arise on account of perception of the witnesses and due to passage of time. But the credibility of the witnesses has not been shaken.
Here, on the exhortation of Thalaiyaripandi (A-11), the accused who were armed with sword had raised murdered assault on the deceased and also injured Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2).
Procedural History
The trial court convicted six accused on December 7, 2007. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. The present appeal was filed by A-1, A-11, and A-15 before the Supreme Court. A-9, A-10, and A-12 completed their sentence and were released. Other accused either died or did not appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 148, 149, 302, 324, 342, 506 (Part II)
