{"id":147084,"date":"2006-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-10-05T17:28:13","modified_gmt":"2015-10-05T11:58:13","slug":"alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 19\/04\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR       \n\n\nCrl.A.No.803 of 2002\nand \nCrl.A.No.863 of 2002\nand \n871 of 2001\nand \nCrl.R.C.No.285\/2002 \nand \nCrl.M.P.No. 9069 of 2005 in Crl.R.C.\nSR No. 46945 of 2005 \n\n\nCrl.Appeal No.803 of 2001\n\n1. Alagarsamy (A-1)\n2. Jothi (A4)\n3. Andichami (A-7)\n4. Renganathan (A-9) \n5. Sakkaraimurthy (A-13)\n6. Rajendran (A-15)\n7. Ramar (A-40)\n                         ... Appellants\/ Accused\n                             Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 1\n                             3, 15 and 40.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai.\n\n                        ... Respondent\/Complainant.\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 863 of 2001\n\n1. Ponniah\n2. Manikandan \n3. Markandan \n4. Rasam @ Ayyavu   \n5. Alaghu\n6. Chockanathan \n7. Chinna Odugan @ Chinna Ulunthan.  \n\n             ... Appellants\/ Accused    Nos.3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 22.\n\nVs \n\nState represented by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai.\n\n                           ... Respondent\/Complainant.\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 871 of 2001\n\n1. Manoharan \n2. Sekar\n3. Selvam \n                     ... Appellants\/Accused Nos.8,\n                                 18 and 21.\n\n\n                        Vs.\nState, by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai.\n\n                        ... Respondent\/Complainant.\n\n\n\nCrl.R.C.No. 285 of 2001\n\n!1. M. Kumar \n2. Periyavar\n3. Mayavar \n                        .. Petitioners\/P.Ws. 2, 5 and 9.\n\n                       Vs.\n\n^1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n   District Crime Branch,\n   Madurai District.    .. Respondent\/Complainant.\n\n2. Duraipandi     .. A-2\n3. Manivasagam    .. A-6\n4. Dinakaran      .. A-10\n5. Karanthamalai  .. A-16\n6. Baskaran       .. A-17\n7. Tamilan        .. A-19\n8. Ambalam        .. A-23\n9. Sethu          .. A-24\n10. Kalanjiam     .. A-25\n11. Mani          .. A-26\n12. Sevagaperumal .. A-27 \n13. Elavarasan    .. A-28\n14. Asokan        .. A-29\n15. Ganesan       .. A-30\n16. Bharathidasan .. A-31\n17. Kathirvel     .. A-32\n18. Thangamani    .. A-33\n19. Pandi         .. A-34\n20. Pugazhendhi   .. A-35\n21. Nagesh        .. A-36\n22. Maduraiveeran .. A-37\n23. Kannan        .. A-38\n24. Selvam        .. A-39       ... Respondents\/Accused.\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        Criminal  Appeals  filed  under  Section  374  of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure   against   the   conviction   and   sentence   imposed    on    the
\naccused\/respective  appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem,
\nin his Judgment dated 26.07.2001, made in Sessions Case No.10 of 2001.
\nCriminal  Revision  Case  filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
\nCode of  Criminal  Procedure  against  the  judgment  passed  by  the  learned
\nPrincipal  Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.10 of 2001 , dated 26-7-2001, in so
\nfar as it relates to the acquittal of respondents 2  to  24\/Accused  from  the
\ncharges  for offences under Sections 12 0-B, 148, 341, 506 (ii), 302 read with
\n34 read with 149 IPC and Section 302 read  with  Section  3  (2)  (v)  of  the
\nScheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
\nread with 149 read with 34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  B.  Sriramulu, Senior counsel for Mrs.P.V.\n<\/p>\n
Rajeswari:- For Appellants in C.A.803\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  S.  Ashok Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr.  A.\n<\/p>\n
Sashidharan:- For appellants in C.A.No.863\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  S.  Ashok Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr.  K.\n<\/p>\n
Jegannathan:- For Appellants-1 and
\n2 in C.A.No.871\/2001 and for Respondents 2 to   20, 22 to 24
\nin Cr.R.C.  No.  285\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  M.  Balasubramanian:- For Appellant-3 in C.A.\n<\/p>\n
No.  871\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  V.  Gopinath, Senior counsel, assisted by Mr.
\nV.  Suresh for Mr.  P.  Rathinam :- For petitioner
\nin Crl.R.C.No.285\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.P.Rathinam  Counsel for petrs.  in Crl.M.P.\n<\/p>\n
Nos.9069 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  N.R.  Chandran, Advocate General, assisted by
\nMr.  P.  Venkatasubramanian for Mr.  V.M.R.\n<\/p>\n
Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor:- For
\nRespondent\/State.\n<\/p>\n
COMMON JUDGMENT
\nP.  Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
        All  the  above  Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision Case arise
\nagainst the Common Judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem,  in
\nSessions Case  No.  10 of 2001, convicting 17 out of 40 accused and acquitting
\n23 accused.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Criminal Appeal Nos.  803, 863 and 871 of 2001 are by A-1, A-3, A-4,  A-5,
\nA-7,  A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22 and A-40,
\nchallenging their conviction under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34  and
\nSec.148 IPC, and  the sentence of life imprisonment.  Crl.R.C.No.  285 of 2001
\nhas been filed by one Kumar, an injured eye witness, examined  as  P.W.2,  and
\ntwo  other  eye  witnesses,  ie., P.Ws.5 and 9, as against the acquittal of 23
\naccused, namely, A2, A6, A10, A16, A17, A19, A23, A24,  A25,  A26,  A27,  A28,
\nA29,  A30,  A3  1, A32, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A38 and A39, from the charges
\nlevelled against each of them.  Crl.M.P.No.9069 of 2005 in Crl.R.C.SR.No.   46
\n945  of  2005 is a petition filed by P.W.2 and two others, seeking condonation
\nof delay in filing the Revision, challenging the acquittal of A1, A3, A4,  A5,
\nA7,  A8,  A9,  A11,  A12,  A13,  A14, A15, A18, A20, A21, A22 and A40 from the
\ncharges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Brief summary of the prosecution case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        A.  The incident giving rise to the present case has  its  genesis  in
\nmid-1996   when   Melavalavu   Village   Panchayat,  previously  a  ‘  General
\nConstituency’, was declared to be Reserved for  the  Scheduled  Caste  people.
\nPrior to that, Melavalavu village-Panchayat was in ‘General Category’ and only
\nin  the  year  1996,  the  Government of Tamil Nadu notified it as a ‘Reserved
\nCategory’ exclusively for the Scheduled Caste people.  This change of category
\nresulted in strained feelings between the members of the Scheduled  Castes  on
\nthe  one  hand  and  Ambalakarar  community  on  the  other hand in Melavalavu
\nvillage.  During the Panchayat Elections in the  year  1996,  there  was  some
\nprotest  from Ambalakara community that SC (Scheduled Caste) people should not
\ncontest the elections.   In  the  following  incidents,  some  of  the  houses
\nbelonging to  the  members  of  the  Scheduled  Caste  were burnt down.  After
\nconciliation, election was conducted on 31.12.1996 and a SC candidate by  name
\nMurugesan  (Deceased-1)  was  elected  as  President  of Melavalavu Panchayat.
\nHowever, he was not able to perform his duty freely  and  without  fear.    On
\n30.6.1997, P.W.1  went  to  the  Collector Office, Madurai.  There, he met 1st
\ndeceased Murugesan (President), 2nd  deceased  Mookan  (Vice  President),  5th
\ndeceased Chelladurai,  3rd  deceased  Sevagamoorthi, P.W.12 and others.  P.W.1
\nwas informed that they came there to claim compensation for the damages caused
\nto the houses of 3 persons by fire.  Since the Collector  was  not  available,
\nthey  left  P.W.12  in  the  office  to  meet  the  Collector and rest of them
\nincluding PW-1 were returning from Madurai to their village in  K.N.R.    Bus.
\nEn route,  in Melur, P.Ws.2 and 3 got into the bus.  At that time, A1, A2, A4,
\nA5 and A6 also boarded  the  same  bus.    When  the  bus  reached  Melavalavu
\nAgraharam  Kallukadai  at  about 2.45 P.M., A-2 shouted at the driver PW.14 to
\nstop the bus, hence, he stopped the bus.  At that time, all the  accused,  led
\nby A.40, surrounded the bus with weapons.\n<\/p>\n
B.   A1  cut  1st  deceased  Murugesan  with Veecharuval on his right shoulder
\nsaying “what for you the presidentship and the compensation”.  The passengers,
\nout of fear, ran away from the bus for safety.  A-1 severed the  head  of  1st
\ndeceased Murugesan  and ran away towards west with the severed head.  A-40 cut
\nthe 6th deceased Raja.  A-5 cut the  5th  deceased  Chelladurai  on  his  left
\nshoulder.   A-6  cut the 3rd deceased Sevagamoorthy on his right side neck and
\nleft ear.  While the 2 nd deceased Mookan  got  down  from  the  bus  and  ran
\ntowards east, A-4 cut him on the backside of his neck with a Pattaknife.  When
\nthe fourth deceased got down from the bus and ran towards west, A-3 cut him on
\nhis neck  and  hand  with Pattaknife.  While P.Ws.1 to 3 attempted to run away
\nfrom the bus, A-16 cut PW-3 on his right cheek with Pattaknife.  A-2 cut P.W.1
\non his right shoulder.  A-19 and A-29 cut P.W.2.  The headless body of the 1st
\ndeceased and bodies of the other deceased persons  were  lying  on  the  road.
\nP.Ws.1  to  3,  the  injured  witnesses, ran away from the scene to Melavalavu
\ncolony.  P.Ws.4 to 11 are also said to have witnessed the occurrence.    P.W.1
\ninformed the  villagers about the occurrence.  Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to
\nMelur Government Hospital by Cycle.  After taking first aid at Melur Hospital,
\nall the 3  were  sent  to  Madurai  Rajaji  Government  Hospital  for  further
\ntreatment.\n<\/p>\n
C.  P.W.47, Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, on coming to know about
\nthe occurrence  at  5.30  P.M.   on 30.6.1997, and also about admission of the
\ninjured witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, proceeded
\nto the Hospital.  At 6.30 P.M., he recorded the statement of P.W.1 and, on the
\nbasis of the same, registered a case in Crime No.508 of  1997  under  Sections
\n147, 148,  341,  307  and  302  I.P.C.   and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled
\nCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,  1989.    He  sent
\nExpress F.   I.R.    to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, went to place of
\noccurrence at 8.20 P.M.  and handed over copy of the F.I.R to  P.W.50,  Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
D.   On  instruction  from  the  Special Cell, P.W.50-Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice, District Crime Branch, took up investigation of the  case  by  leading
\nthe Special Team.  Observation mahazar-Ex.P-4 was prepared between 20.30 hours
\nand 21-30 hours.   Rough Sketch was prepared under Ex.P-89.  M.Os.2 to 15 were
\nrecovered from the place of occurrence at 21.30  hours  under  mahazar-Ex.P-5.
\nP.W.16 is  the mahazar witness.  Inquest over the body of D-1 was conducted by
\nP.W.50 and Ex.  P.92 is the inquest report.  Ex.P.91  is  the  inquest  report
\nrelating to  the  head of D-1.  Inquest on D-2 was conducted by P.W.48 and the
\nreport is Ex.P-87.  Inquest on D-4 was conducted by  P.W.48  and  the  inquest
\nreport is  Ex.P-88.    Inquest  on D-6 was conducted by P.W.45 and the inquest
\nreport is Ex.P-85.  Inquest on D-3 was conducted by  P.W.48  and  the  inquest
\nreport is Ex.P-86.   During inquest, P.W.50 examined P.  Ws.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and\n<\/p>\n
11.  Observation mahazar regarding the bus  is  Ex.P-6.    M.O.30-bloodstained
\nstone was  recovered  from  the  Bus  under  mahazar Ex.P-93.  P.W.50 examined
\nP.Ws.13, 16 and 17 and went to Government Hospital, Madurai, where he examined
\nP.Ws.1 to 3, the injured witnesses on 01-7-1997.\n<\/p>\n
E.   P.W.21-Dr.Meyyalagan,  attached  to  the  Government  Hospital,  Madurai,
\nconducted  post-mortem on the dead bodies of D-6, D-1, D-4 and D-5 on 01-7-97.
\nExs.  P-35, 37, 39 and 41 are the post-mortem certificates issued  by  him  in
\nrespect of the   above  deceased.    P.W.22-Dr.    Maharani  attached  to  the
\nGovernment Hospital, Madurai, conducted postmortem on the dead bodies  of  D-3
\nand D-2  on  1-7-1997.    Exs.P-43  and  P-45  are  the respective post-mortem
\ncertificates.\n<\/p>\n
F.  On 01.07.1997, at 2-30 P.M., P.W.50 arrested  A-20,  A-22,  A-2  3,  A-25,
\nA-26,  A-27 and A-39 and, in pursuance of their statements, M.Os.1, 31, 32, 33
\nand 34 were recovered from the accused.  He arrested A-28 on 3.7.97  at  00.30
\nhours and  recovered  Aruval-M.O.35 and M.O.36 from him.  On 12.7.97, at 10.30
\nA.M., he arrested A-7, A-17, A-29  and,  in  pursuance  of  their  statements,
\nrecovered M.Os.37, 38 and 39.  A-13 was arrested on 13-7-97 at Anna Bus Stand,
\nMadurai.   On  21-7-97,  A-1  and A-10 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate,
\nKulithalai.  On 4-8-1997, P.W.50 arrested A-16,  A-30  &  A-31  and  recovered
\nM.Os.  40,  41  &  42.    On  4-8-1997,  A-11 and A-12 surrender ed before the
\nJudicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, and M.Os.    43  and  44  were  recovered  on
\n13-8-19 97.   On 14-8-1997, A-32, A-38 and Jayaraman (died) surrendered before
\nthe Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, and, in  pursuance  of  their  statement,
\nM.Os.45, 46,  47 and 48 were recovered on 20-8-97.  P.W.50 arrested A-8, A-14,
\nA-35 and one Vadivelu on 25-8-1997 and recovered weapons-M.Os.49, 50 and 51 in
\npursuance of their statements.  A-3 surrendered  before  Judicial  Magistrate,
\nSivagangai, on 18-8-97.   P.W.50 recovered Aruval (M.O.52) from him.  A-33 was
\narrested on 28-8-1997 at 1 8-30 hours and M.O.53 knife was recovered from him.
\nA-36 was arrested on 01-9-1997 at 14.00 hours and M.O.54 aruval was  recovered
\nfrom him.   A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul on 26-8-9\n<\/p>\n
7.  P.W.50 recovered M.O.55 pattaknife from A-2 on 3-9-97 at 15.20 hours.   He
\narrested A-6  on  4-10-97  at Naithampativilakku.  P.W.6-Head Constable, Melur
\nPolice Station, arrested A-40r on 23-10-2000.\n<\/p>\n
        G.  After getting the chemical examination report-Ex.P-51,  Serologist
\nreport-Ex.P-52  and completing the investigation, P.W.50 filed charge sheet on
\n25-9-1997.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 50, marked  Exs.    P-1  to  P-121  and
\nproduced M.Os.1  to 55.  On the side of the defence, 2 witnesses were examined
\nas D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.  D-1 to D-19 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  When questioned under Section  313  Cr.P.C.,  the  accused
\ndenied  having  any complicity in the commission of the crime and also pleaded
\ninnocence.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   The  learned  Principal   Sessions   Judge,   Salem,   on
\nappreciation  of  the evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted 17 out of
\n40 accused under Section 302 read with Sec.34 IPC  and  Section  148  IPC  and
\nsentenced  them  to  undergo life imprisonment, and acquitted the remaining 23
\naccused of all the charges.  Questioning  the  conviction  and  sentence,  the
\nCriminal  Appeals  have  been  filed;  and  aggrieved  by  the acquittal of 23
\naccused, the injured witnesses filed the Criminal Revision Case.  However, the
\nState has not preferred appeal against the acquittal of some of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Heard Mr.  B.    Sriramulu,  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  appellants  in
\nCriminal Appeal No.   803\/2001;  Mr.   S.  Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
\nfor appellants in Criminal Appeal No.  863\/2001,  for  appellant  in  Criminal
\nAppeal No.  871\/2001;  Mr.    M.    Balasubramanian  for appellant in Criminal
\nAppeal No.  871\/2001; Mr.  V.  Gopinath, learned senior counsel for petitioner
\nin Crl.R.C.No.  285\/2002; Mr.   P.    Rathinam,  for  petitioner  in  Crl.M.P.
\nNo.9069\/05 in  Crl.R.C.   No.46495\/2005; and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate
\nGeneral for Respondent\/State.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The points for consideration in the Criminal Appeals are:\n<\/p>\n
i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against Accused 1, 3,
\n4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 40?.\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting  those  accused
\nunder Section 302 read with 34 IPC and imposing life imprisonment on them?;\n<\/p>\n
The only point that arises for consideration in the Criminal Revision case is,<\/p>\n
Whether  the  finding of the trial Court in acquitting the rest of the accused
\nis correct\/justified or any interference is called for?\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Before proceeding to consider the  arguments  advanced  on  either
\nside,  it  is pertinent to note that in the post mortem certificates issued by
\nthe Doctors, they opined that the deceased persons would appear to  have  died
\nof shock  and  haemorrhage  due  to multiple injuries.  In respect of deceased
\nMurugesan, the opinion is that he would appear  to  have  died  of  shock  and
\nhaemorrhage due  to multiple injuries including the decapitation injury.  That
\nbeing so, this Court has no difficulty to come  to  the  conclusion  that  the
\ndeceased died of homicidal violence.\n<\/p>\n
10.   The  following  points  have  been  urged  by the learned Senior Counsel
\nappearing for the appellants:\n<\/p>\n
i) The origin and genesis of the occurrence was not brought out in  the  F.I.R
\nand  the  original  F.I.R,  which came into existence at the earliest point of
\ntime, was suppressed by the prosecution to suit their convenience.   For  that
\npurpose, the  learned  Senior Counsel relied upon Ex.  D-19, the Report of the
\nCollector to the Chief Minister,  wherein,  it  is  stated  that  as  per  the
\ncomplaint of  P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.  508\/1997, on the file
\nof Melur Police Station, under Sections 147, 148,  324,  307  and  302  I.P.C.
\nread with Section 3 (1) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (
\nPrevention  of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against Duraipandi, Ambalam and 14 known
\npersons.  The said Report is dated 30-06-1997.  They also relied  on  Ex.D.13,
\nReport of  the  Tahsildar  to  the  District Collector as well as Ex.  D-1, an
\naffidavit filed by P.W.1 before the High Court in a Writ  Petition.    In  the
\nsaid  affidavit,  at  paragraph  No.4,  P.W.1 stated about the role of A-2 and
\nothers in the crime.  In para 5, it is stated that one Kannan chopped the head
\nof Murugesan.  Pointing out the above  aspects,  the  learned  Senior  Counsel
\nwould  argue that the original F.I.R., which contains the truthful events, was
\nsuppressed and that, for the  reasons  best  known  to  the  police,  all  the
\nappellants herein were roped in.\n<\/p>\n
ii) Secondly, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.47, it is contended that the
\ncase  was  not  immediately  registered and that even though the court and the
\npolice station are in the same area, there was  a  delay  of  three  hours  in
\nforwarding the  F.I.R.    to the Magistrate, which is fatal to the prosecution
\ncase.  They also referred  to  the  serial  numbers  in  the  F.I.R  book  and
\ncontended  that,  in  the  absence  of a particular order in which the related
\nevents should follow each other in the F.I.R., it leads to a presumption  that
\nthe original F.I.R.    had  been  suppressed.  Even though they ask ed for the
\nF.I.R book, the same was not produced before the Court.   According  to  them,
\nall  these  aspects would go to show that the prosecution did not come forward
\nwith  the  truth,  hence,  the  benefit  of  doubt  should  be  given  to  the
\nappellants\/accused and they should be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
iii)  Thirdly,  it  is  contended that when PWs-1 to 3 turned hostile and when
\nthere are contradictions between the evidence of the  alleged  eye  witnesses,
\nthe  trial  court  should  not  have  considered their evidence to convict the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
        iv) Fourthly, it is argued that since the witnesses  to  the  recovery
\nturned hostile, the recovery made by the police could not be believed.\n<\/p>\n
v)  Fifthly,  it is pointed out that for some of the accused, only one witness
\nspeaks to about the overt act.  In a case of this  kind,  the  evidence  of  a
\nsingle witness will not be enough to base the conviction.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Mr.   N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State met
\nall the contentions by placing relevant  materials.    Mr.V.Gopinath,  learned
\nSenior  Counsel  and  Mr.Rathinam,  appearing  for  the  Revision  Petitioners
\ninsisted that the matter has to be remitted back to the trial court for  fresh
\nconsideratio n of evidence in so far as the acquitted accused.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Before  going into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants, let us ascertain as to whether  the  prosecution  has  established
\n‘motive’ for  the  occurrence.    The prosecution party belongs to Adi-Dravida
\ncommunity and the accused party belongs  to  Ambalakarar  community.    Often,
\nthere  used to be skirmish and disputes between these two communities even for
\ntrivial matters.  One such contentious issue was the contest in  the  election
\nto  the  post  of Village Panchayat President, Melavalavu, after Government of
\nTamil Nadu declared Melavalavu as a reserved constituency in  the  year  1996.
\nEnraged  by  this  declaration,  the  Ambalakarar  community  warned  that  no
\nAdiDravida\/Dalit candidate should contest in the Panchayat  elections.    Till
\n1996, A-1  was  the  President  of  the Panchayat.  After it became a reserved
\nconstituency and  when  Panchayat  elections  were  announced,  no  one  filed
\nnomination  from  the  Adi-Dravida community for the post of President fearing
\nreprisal at the hands  of  the  people  belonging  to  Ambalakarar  community.
\nElections were  announced  for  the  second  time.    Government  assured  the
\nprospective candidates from Adi-Dravida community  that  protection  would  be
\ngiven  and, based on such promise, Murugesan (D1) filed his nomination for the
\npost of Village President.  Infuriated by the action  of  the  deceased,  some
\nmiscreants  set  fire  to  the  houses  of  few  people  belong to Adi-Dravida
\ncommunity and consequently the elections were  again  postponed.    Thereupon,
\nelections were  announced  for  the  third time.  This time also, the deceased
\nfiled his nomination.  He was also given sufficient  protection.    Initially,
\nthe  elections went on smoothly, but later, there was an ugly turn when people
\nbelonging to Ambalakarar and  Kallar  communities  seized  the  ballot  boxes,
\nbecause  of  which,  the counting of votes could not be done and the elections
\nwere cancelled.  Thereafter, elections were announced for the fourth  time  in
\nthis caste-dominated  village.    This  time  too, the deceased (D1) filed his
\nnomination and he won the election.  Even though he took oath,  he  could  not
\noccupy  the  post  of Panchayat President in view of the stiff opposition from
\ncommunities other than those belong to Adi-Dravida community.  They were  also
\nangry, because, in the ballot box seizure case, two persons, viz., A-3 & A-21,
\nwere convicted.\n<\/p>\n
13.   The  finding  of  the  trial  Court  that  there  was no prior motive or
\nintention to commit the offence is controverted by the evidence let in by  the
\nprosecution.   It  is  the  evidence  of  P.W.1  that A-8 Manoharan was in the
\nCollector Office, Madurai, when Murugesan (D1) and others  came  to  meet  the
\nCollector.   A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 got into the bus at Melur in which the
\ndeceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 were travelling.  When  the  Bus  reached  Melavalavu
\nAgraharam Kallukadai, A-2 shouted at the driver to stop the bus.  When the bus
\nwas  stopped, all the accused under the leadership of A-40 armed with weapons,
\nsurrounded the  bus.    They  attacked  D-1,  the  President;  D-2,  the  Vice
\nPresident; other deceased persons and the injured witnesses, all belong to the
\nScheduled Caste.  The above sequence of events unequivocally establish that it
\nis a  premeditated and pre-planned attack on the unarmed victims.  P.W.50, the
\nInvestigating Officer, clearly stated that of the 40 accused, A-5, A-6,  A-19,
\nA-25, A-26, A-28, A-30 and A-40 were from surrounding villages and they belong
\nto Ambalakarar  community.    All of them were armed with weapons as the other
\naccused were.  Thus, it is very clear that the incident arose as a  sequel  to
\nthe  reservation  of  the  Panchayat  exclusively for members of the Scheduled
\nCaste and  that  the  hostility  of  the  other  communities  towards  the  SC
\ncandidates  contesting  in the elections was not confined to Melavalavu alone.
\nThe fact that so many accused from other surrounding villages had  come  armed
\nwith weapons, targeting the S.C President and other elders, clearly shows that
\nthe entire attack was pre-planned, premeditated and targeted at SCs.  It is to
\nbe  noted  that  the  bus was plying over the route, covering a long distance.
\nHowever, the bus was stopped at the instance of A-2 at  an  unscheduled  place
\nand it  was  surrounded  immediately  by  the armed accused.  From this, it is
\napparent that A-2 was clear and successful in executing a part of their  plan,
\nthat is,  to  stop  the bus.  These clear sequence of events unerringly points
\ntowards the pre-planned nature of the attack.  Added to this, P.Ws.14 and 1 3,
\nthe bus driver and conductor respectively, though turned hostile, have clearly
\ntestified that the stopping was indeed unscheduled and that the occurrence had
\ntaken place at the time, date and place as put  forward  by  the  prosecution,
\nthus, supporting the prosecution version on this aspect.  In Ex.D-19, which is
\na  report of the District Collector, Madurai, sent to the Chief Minister, Fort
\nSt.  George, Chennai-9, it is stated that the election dispute was the  motive
\nfor the  occurrence.    In view of the abundant materials available on record,
\nwhile  disagreeing  with  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,  we  hold  that   the
\nprosecution has established the motive for the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   Coming  to the contention relating to suppression of the
\noriginal F.I.R, which came into existence at the earliest point of  time,  Mr.
\nB.   Sriramulu,  learned  Senior  Counsel  for some of the appellants, heavily
\nrelied on Ex.  D-19, which is a report of the Collector to the Chief Minister.
\nIt is true that in the said report, it is stated that,  on  the  complaint  of
\nP.W.1, a  case  was  registered  in Crime No.  508\/97 under Sections 147, 148,
\n324, 307 and 302 I.P.C.  and Section 3 (1) (x) of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and
\nScheduled  Tribes  (Prevention  of Atrocities) Act, against Markandan, Ambalam
\nand 14 known persons.  Learned Senior counsel has also relied on  Ex.    D-13,
\nreport of the Tahsildar to the District Collector.  He further relied upon Ex.
\nD-1,  an  affidavit  of  P.W.1  filed  before  this Court in a writ proceeding
\n(WP.273 of 1 999) wherein, P.W.1 stated that one Kannan severed  the  head  of
\nMurugesan.  By pointing out the above said aspects, the learned Senior counsel
\ncontended  that  the  original F.I.R., which contains the truthful events, was
\nsuppressed and due to the reasons best known to  the  police,  the  appellants
\nherein were  roped  in.   He also contended that nonproduction of the original
\nF.I.R.  by the prosecution would amply prove that the  prosecution  suppressed
\nthe genesis of the occurrence, which fatally affects the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Regarding  the  report  of the Collector i.e., Ex.  D-19, it is seen that
\nthe same was sent to the Chief Minister on the same day on the  basis  of  the
\nearliest information  received.   The Collector, being the Administrative Head
\nof the District, is expected to  brief  the  Government  then  and  there  and
\nwithout  further  loss  of  time,  particularly in a case of this nature where
\npeople belonging to upper caste unleashed brutal violence against an oppressed
\nclass of people by beheading and murdering their elders.  Only after  thorough
\ninvestigation  by  visiting the place of occurrence, examining the persons who
\nwitnessed the occurrence, etc., it would be  possible  for  the  investigating
\nagency  to arrive at a clear-cut decision, hence, Ex.D-19 cannot be taken as a
\nbasis for the prosecution case, at the most, it can be treated as the earliest
\ninformation\/Report to the Government.  In this regard,  evidence  of  the  eye
\nwitnesses,  which  we  are  going  to  discuss  here-under, would be relevant.
\nP.W.47, in his cross-examination by A-1 and others, gave explanation for  such
\ntype of  registration  and  some  of  the  discrepancies  in  the  F.I.R.  The
\nexplanation offered is reasonable and the same cannot be doubted.  As  rightly
\npointed  out, when the entire village was under the grip of fear on account of
\n6 murders, that too between two communities in the same village, it cannot  be
\nsaid   that   the   Investigating  Officer  was  sitting  idle  in  doing  the
\ninvestigation systematically and as per rules.  He has to see the  criticality
\nof the  situation and act suitably.  Sensing the same, P.W.47 acted diligently
\nand quickly, hence, the way in which the F.I.R.    was  registered  cannot  be
\ntermed as  illegal.    At  the  most,  the  discrepancy  pointed out may be an
\nirregularity by the officer, who conducted the investigation, but it is not an
\nillegality.  Such irregularity by itself cannot shake the  foundation  of  the
\nprosecution case.   Accordingly,  based  on Ex.  D-19, the whole investigation
\ncannot be said to be faulty, because, it is the  formal  report  sent  by  the
\nofficials to the  higher authority.  We are satisfied that Exs.  D-19 and D-13
\nwould in no way affect the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
16.  It is relevant to note that P.W.1, though at a later point of time turned
\nhostile, had not denied the contents and his signature in Ex.  P-1,  which  is
\nthe complaint relating to the incident.  Ex.  P-1 reached the Court within two
\nhours of registration of the case, hence, there is no ground to disbelieve it.
\nIt  will  be  useful  in  this context to refer to the judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in State of Karnataka v.  K.  Yarappa Reddy,<\/a> (1999) 8 S.C.C.    715,  at
\npage 720:\n<\/p>\n
” 19.  But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine)
\nhave any  inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case?  If the other
\nevidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the  Court  be
\ninfluenced  by  the  machinations demonstrated by the investigating officer in
\nconducting investigation or in preparing the records so  unscrupulously?    It
\ncan  be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for
\njudicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case
\ncannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of  investigation.    It  is
\nwell-high settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious
\nthe  rest  of  the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of
\nit.   Otherwise  the  criminal  trial  will  plummet  to  the  level  of   the
\ninvestigating officers ruling the roost.  The court must have predominance and
\npre-eminence  in  criminal  trials  over  the  action  taken  by investigating
\nofficers.  Criminal justice should not be  made  a  casualty  for  the  wrongs
\ncommitted by  the  investigating officers in the case.  In other words, if the
\ncourt is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence  is  true
\nthe  court  is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer’s suspicious
\nrole in the case.”\n<\/p>\n
17.  In Nirmal Singh v.  State of Bihar (2005) 9 SCC 725, the  defence  raised
\ndoubts about  the  F.I.R  and  the  nature  of the prosecution case.  After an
\nelaborate discussion of the evidence, the Supreme Court held, at para 19, page
\n732:\n<\/p>\n
“…  we do not feel persuaded to discard the case of the prosecution only  on
\naccount of  some  infirmities which we have noticed earlier.  There appears to
\nbe  no  reason  why  so  many  eye  witnesses  should  falsely  implicate  the
\nappellants,  and  there  is  in  fact,  nothing  on record to suggest that the
\nwitnesses had any reason to falsely implicate them.”\n<\/p>\n
18.  In Sanganagouda A.  Veeranagouda v.  State of  Karnataka<\/a>  (2005)  12  SCC
\n468,  the  Supreme Court held that when the evidence of an eye witness (PW1 in
\nthat case) is clear, non-production of the complaint said to have been  lodged
\nby   him   before   the   Assistant   Commissioner   prior  to  the  F.I.R  is
\ninconsequential.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In the present case too, evidence of  the  eye  witnesses  including  the
\ninjured  eye  witnesses  is well supported and corroborated by other evidence.
\nAs discussed above, the entire evidence cannot be discarded or ignored for the
\nreason that the F.I.R book was not produced or there is a doubt regarding  the
\nnames of the  accused  in Ex.  P-1 and other documents.  Where the evidence of
\nwitnesses is otherwise natural, reliable and  corroborates  one  another,  the
\nsame can be accepted as a whole to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution
\nhas established its case.\n<\/p>\n
20.   It  is  also brought to our notice that the practice of calling for case
\ndiaries and C.D.  entries for the purpose of crossexamination  was  prohibited
\nby the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in various decisions.  Accordingly, it is not
\nopen to the defence to call for those documents as they are meant only to  set
\nthe law in motion.\n<\/p>\n
21.   Now,  let  us  consider  the  allegation  relating  to  the delay in not
\nregistering the case immediately and sending the F.I.R after 3 hours when  the
\nCourt is  in the same area.  It is the main contention of the appellants that,
\nthough most of the eye witnesses and other witnesses for seizure, arrest etc.,
\nturned hostile, irrespective of the same, the trial Judge accepted the case of
\nthe  prosecution  to  some  extent   and   on   that   basis   convicted   the
\nappellants\/accused.   In  this context, let us consider the questions relating
\nto:\n<\/p>\n
        (a) reliance placed on the evidence of some of the      eye\nwitnesses; and \n        (b) treating some of the eye\/injured witnesses as       hostile    and\nrejecting their evidence.\n\n<\/pre>\n
22.   On  30-6-1997,  Murugesan  (D1),  accompanied  by  Mookan,  Chelladurai,
\nSevagamoorthi,  Nithyanandam,  Pandiammal  and  Kanchivannan,  went   to   the
\nCollector’s office  at  Madurai.   When Murugesan (D-1) saw P.W.1, he told him
\nthat he had come there to ask compensation for the three persons, who suffered
\nloss as their houses were burnt down at the time of the elections.   When  all
\nof  them  went inside the Collector’s office, the Collector was not available,
\nhence, they left behind PW-12  Kanchivannan  at  the  Collector’s  office  and
\nothers decided  to  return  to  the  village.  When they were about to return,
\nManoharan (A8) saw them and asked one  Nithyanandam  as  to  when  they  would
\nreturn  to  the  village,  for which, the said Nithyanandam told that they are
\ngoing in K.N.R bus.    Immediately  A-8  went  towards  the  telephone  booth.
\nMurugesan (D-1) and other persons boarded the K.N.R bus.  When the bus reached
\nMelur, two other persons, namely, Kumar, P.W.2 and Chinnaiah, P.W.3, belonging
\nto the   Adi-Dravida   community,   boarded  the  bus.    At  that  time,  A-1
\n(Alagarsamy), A-2  (Durai  Pandi),  A-5  (Manikandan),  A-4  (Jothi)  and  A-6
\n(Manivasagam) also boarded the same bus.  P.W.1 identified all the above named
\n5 accused  in  the  Court.  At about 2.45 P.M., when the bus reached Agraharam
\nKallukadai, A-2 threatened the driver to stop the bus and the bus was stopped.
\nA-40, along with  other  accused,  all  belonging  to  Ambalakarar  community,
\nsurrounded the  bus.    A-1 cut Murugesan (D1) telling him as to why they want
\ncompensation and further cut him on the right shoulder.  The passengers in the
\nbus, out of fear, ran helter-skelter for their lives.  A-1 severed the head of
\ndeceased Murugesan and took it away.  A-40 (Ramar) cut  deceased  Raja.    A-5
\nManikandan cut   deceased  Chelladurai.    A-6  (  Manivasagam)  cut  deceased
\nSevagamoorthy on the  right  side  of  the  neck  and  left  ear.    When  the
\nVice-President Mookan tried to escape, A-4 (Jothi) cut him on the back side of
\nhis neck with a pattaknife.  This gruesome incident was seen by P.W.1 while he
\nwas standing  in  the  bus.    When  deceased  Bhoopathy  tried to escape, A-3
\n(Ponnaiah) cut him on his legs and hands and when P.W.1 also tried to  escape,
\nhe too was  cut.   A-16 ( Karanthamalai) cut Chinnaiah on the left cheek.  A-2
\n(Durai Pandi) cut P.W.1 on the  right  shoulder.    A-19  (Tamilan)  and  A-29
\n(Ashokan) cut  P.W.2 Kumar.  The headless body of Murugesan was found lying on
\nthe road along with the bodies of other  deceased.    P.W.1,  on  seeing  this
\nscene, ran  away  from the occurrence place to his colony out of fear.  In the
\ncolony, he found P.Ws.3 and 2,  Chinnaiah  and  Kumar.    They  explained  the
\nincident  to  the  other  residents of the colony and as per the advice of the
\nvillagers, they went to the Melur  Government  Hospital  by  cycle  through  a
\nshort-cut route.    In  the  Melur  hospital,  they  were  given first aid and
\nthereafter, sent to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai by  car.    They
\nwere admitted  in the Hospital for about one week as in-patients.  After their
\nadmission, P.W.47 Inspector of  Police,  Melur  Police  Station,  visited  the
\nhospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1.  The statement was read over and
\nexplained to  P.W.1,  who accepted its correctness and signed the same.  P.W.1
\nalso identified M.O.1 Veecharuval, which was used by A-1 and  also  the  patta
\nknife used by A-2.  He further stated that one Karuppan, Kalayani, Mayavar and
\nPeriyavar also witnessed the occurrence.  Since all of them were threatened by
\nthe  accused  they  did  not come out immediately to speak about the incident.
\nThey are P.Ws.5, 9, 10 and 11.\n<\/p>\n
23.  P.W.2, Kumar, corroborated the statement of P.W.1.  As far as  the  overt
\nacts are  concerned,  A-40  surrounded the bus with other accused.  He further
\nrepeated that A-1 asked Murugesan (deceased-1) as “why are  you  after  posts”
\nand  so saying cut the head, severed it and ran away towards west, followed by
\nother accused.  He also stated that A-19 (Tamilan) and  A-27  (Sevagaperumal),
\ncut  his  (P.W.2’s) left middle finger, right hand and on the back side of the
\nneck.  Somehow, he and P.W.3 escaped and ran towards their  col  ony.    P.W.1
\nKrishnan  also  came there and all the 3 of them went to the hospital by cycle
\nand they were later taken to Rajaji Government Hospital at Madurai, where they
\nunderwent treatment for about one week as in-patients.\n<\/p>\n
24.  P.W.3, Chinnaiah, is also an injured witness  like  P.Ws.1  and  2.    He
\ncorroborates  the  evidence  of  P.W.1  and  P.W.2 as far as the occurrence is
\nconcerned.  Regarding the overt acts, according to him, A-1  (Alagsrsamy)  cut
\nMurugesan indiscriminately.    When  P.W.3  Chinnaiah  tried  to  escape, A-16
\n(Karanthamalai) cut on his right cheek.  A-19 and A-27  cut  P.W.2  Kumar  and
\nA-24 and  A-6  cut  deceased Sevagamoorthy.  When P.W.3 went to his colony, he
\nsaw P.W.2 there with injuries and, at that  time,  P.W.1  Krishnan  also  came
\nthere.   All  the  three  went to Melur Government Hospital by cycle and after
\nfirst aid, they were sent to the Government Hospital at Madurai,  where,  they
\nwere admitted  as  in-patient  for  about  a  week.   On the same day, P.W.47,
\nInspector of Police, Melur Police Station,  came  there  and  examined  P.W.1,
\nP.W.3 and others.\n<\/p>\n
25.  P.W.23 is  Dr.    Venkatachalam.    On 30-6-1997, while he was on duty as
\nAssistant Duty Officer, Casualty Ward, P.W.3 came to him at  about  4.50  p.m.
\nfor treatment.  He examined him.  P.W.3 has stated that he was attacked by one
\nknown person on 30-6-1997 at about 3.15 p.m.  He found two injuries on him and
\nissued Ex.P-46-wound certificate.\n<\/p>\n
26.   P.W.1  Krishnan  came  to  P.W.23 for treatment and informed that he was
\nattacked by about 40 known persons at about 3.15 p.m.   and  P.W.23  found  an
\ninjury, for which he issued a wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.  P-47.\n<\/p>\n
27.   On  the  same  day, at about 5 p.m., P.W.2 came to P.W.23 for treatment.
\nP.W.2 stated that he was attacked by about 20 to 30 persons at about 3.15 p.m.
\nP.W.23 issued a wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.  P-48.\n<\/p>\n
28.  As rightly pointed out, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be rejected in toto.
\nThough he was examined in chief on 2-4-2001, he  was  cross-examined  only  on
\n26-6-2001.   In  the chief examination, P.W.1 has narrated the entire sequence
\nof the occurrence right from its inception.  The original idea  of  committing
\nthe murder could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 which started on 30.6.1997
\nat  the  Collector’ s Office, Madurai, where A-8 asked Nithyanandam as to when
\nthe deceased and others would return to their village and after collecting the
\ndetails, he rushed towards the telephone booth.  It is not in dispute that  on
\n2-4-2001, P.W.1  was  cross-examined  by  3  defence  counsel.    The same was
\nrecorded and it runs to about 15 pages.  During that time, nothing was brought
\nout by the defence to dispute the evidence of P.W.1 .  On the contrary, he was
\nrecalled on 26-6-2001, i.e., after 2 = months, and only at that time,  he  was
\ntreated as  hostile  witness.  There is every likelihood of his being won over
\nby the defence during this period of 2  =  months  and  to  answer  this,  the
\ndefence is  relying  upon  Ex.  D-1, which is an affidavit filed by P.W.1 in a
\nwrit petition filed before this Court, wherein, he had stated that he has fear
\nof the  prosecution  party.      It   cannot   be   accepted,   because,   the
\naffidavit\/Ex.D-1  came  to  be filed only on 6.1.1999, whereas, the occurrence
\nhad taken place on 30.6.1997, that is, about 1 = years after  the  occurrence.
\nHence,  it  is  apparent that only at the behest of the defence, PW-1 had made
\nsuch statement in the affidavit.  It clearly shows that the accused party  had
\nthreatened P.W.1   and   obtained   this   affidavit.      At   the   time  of
\ncross-examination of P.W.1 by the defence on 2-4-2001, he stated that  he  was
\ntaken forcibly  and  his  signature  was obtained under threat.  He denied the
\nsuggestion that he filed the affidavit stating that he has given  false  names
\nin the F.I.R.  He also narrated about the circumstances under which he came to
\nfile  the  affidavit  before  this Court when he was cross-examined by A-2 and
\nothers on 2-4-2001.  He denied the  suggestion  put  forward  by  the  defence
\ncounsel on behalf of A-7 and others that due to fear of Viduthalai Cheerithai,
\nhe is  deposing  against the accused.  If the personal defence is correct that
\nhe filed the affidavit on his own, he would have come forward to  depose  both
\nin the chief as well as cross examination about the details of the prosecution
\ncase in  favour of the prosecution.  Moreover P.W.1 is an injured witness, who
\ntravelled in the bus right from  the  inception  of  the  occurrence  and  his
\npresence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted.\n<\/p>\n
29.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in various cases that merely because a
\nwitness  is  declared  hostile,  his  entire evidence does not get excluded or
\nrendered unworthy of consideration.  One such is the case reported in 1989 SCC
\n(Crl) 388 (State of U.P.  v.  Chet Ram).  The Court<\/a> should see the reality  of
\nthe situation and come to rescue to do justice.\n<\/p>\n
30.   It  is  useful to refer the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
\nassessing the evidence tendered by witnesses, who later become  hostile.    In
\nKhujji v.  State of M.P., 1991 (3) SCC 627, the Supreme Court declared thus:\n<\/p>\n
” 6.   …    It  seems  to  be  well settled by the decisions of this Court
\nBhagwan Singh v.  State of Haryana (1976 (1) SCC 389), Rabindra Kumar  Dey  v.
\nState of  Orissa  (AIR<\/a>  1977  SC  170)  and  Syad Akbar v.  State of Karnataka<\/a>
\n((1980) 1 SCC 30) — that the evidence of  a  prosecution  witness  cannot  be
\nrejected  in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile
\nand cross-examined him.  The evidence of such witnesses cannot be  treated  as
\neffaced  or  washed  off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to
\nthe extent their version is found to  be  dependable  on  a  careful  scrutiny
\nthereof.”\n<\/p>\n
Examining the evidence on record, the Supreme Court further held:
\n“It  is true that the first information report is not substantive evidence but
\nthe fact remains that immediately after the incident and before there was  any
\nextraneous  intervention,  P.W.4  went  to the police station and narrated the
\nincident.  The first information report is a detailed document and it  is  not
\npossible  to believe that the investigating officer imagined those details and
\nprepared the document Ex.P-3.  The detailed narration about  the  incident  in
\nthe first information report goes to show that the subsequent attempt of P.W.4
\nto  disown the document, while admitting his signature thereon, is a shift for
\nreasons best known to P.W.4.  We are, therefore, not prepared  to  accept  the
\ncriticism  that  the  version  regarding  the  incident  is the result of some
\nfertile thinking on the part of the investigating officer.  We are  satisfied,
\nbeyond  any manner of doubt, that P.W.4 had gone to the police station and had
\nlodged the first information report.  …  ”\n<\/p>\n
As pointed out earlier, P.W.1 in the present case  had  also  not  denied  his
\nsignature in Ex.P-1.  Ex.P-1 reached the court within 2 hours, hence, there is
\nno ground  to disbelieve it.  Thus, taken altogether, merely because P.W.1 and
\nP.W.3 turned hostile after being recalled, their evidence cannot be completely
\neffaced and ignored, especially where there is  otherwise  credible,  reliable
\nand corroborative evidence available on record.\n<\/p>\n
31.   Thus,  it  is  a  settled position in law, as on date, that if a witness
\nturns hostile, the Court need not close  its  eyes  to  the  entirety  of  the
\nevidence of the hostile witness and the Court has a right to probe further and
\nfind out whether there is any legal material, which can be taken into account.
\nIn the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCC Crl.  916 (Khujji v.
\nState  of M.P.), an occasion had arisen to decide as to whether once a witness
\nis treated as hostile and cross examined by the State, should the evidence  of
\nsuch witness  be  completely exonerated from consideration?  The facts in that
\ncase in the relevant context is that the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 were rejected
\nby the trial court because they were declared as hostile, since  they  refused
\nto identify  the  culprits  as  the assailants of the deceased.  Following the
\nearlier judgments reported in (1976) 1 SCC 389 (Bhagwan Singh vs.    State  of
\nHaryana); (1976)  4  SCC  233  (Rabindra  Kumar  Dey vs.  State of Orissa) and<\/a>
\n(1980) 1 SCC 30 (Syed Akbar vs.  State of Karnataka), the Supreme  Court  went
\non to lay down the law as hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” …    that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected
\nin toto merely because the prosecution chose  to  treat  him  as  hostile  and
\ncross-examine him.    The evidence of such witnesses cannot be accepted to the
\nextent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny  thereof.
\nIn  the  present  case,  the  evidence  of the aforesaid two eye witnesses was
\nchallenged by the prosecution in cross examination  because  they  refused  to
\nname the  accused  in  the  dock as the assailants of the deceased.  We are in
\nagreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the  State  that  the
\ntrial  court  made no effort to scrutinise the evidence of these two witnesses
\neven in regard to the factum of the incident.  ”\n<\/p>\n
32.  Following the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, it  has  to  be
\nseen  as  to  whether  the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that since
\nPWs-1 to 3 turned hostile, their evidence lacks credibility and is useless; is
\nlegally tenable or not.  The learned Sessions Judge did not take into  account
\nas  to  why  the witnesses, who all along supported the prosecution case, when
\nrecalled after a period of 85 days, ie., after all prosecution  witnesses  had
\nbeen examined,  took a sudden reverse and turned hostile.  It is apparent that
\nthey have thus been won over by the  defence.    All  these  issues  were  not
\nproperly considered  by  the trial Court.  We deem it appropriate to point out
\nhere that the Court has onerous duty to find out as to where exactly lies  the
\ntruth.   The  Court  can  safely presume that during the time that had elapsed
\nbetween the recording of the evidence of the witness on the first occasion and<\/p>\n
further cross examination, after the witness was recalled,  much  water  could
\nhave  been flown under the bridge and it is not possible to totally ignore the
\nchance of the witness being brought under terror or panic.\n<\/p>\n
33.  The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 was rejected by the trial  Court  mainly  on
\nthe ground  that  they  were  examined  35  days  after  the  occurrence.  The
\nexplanation given by P.W.6 and P.W.7 is that they were frightened and, out  of
\nfear, they  did  not  immediately  disclose as to what they had seen.  In fact
\nP.W.7 states that he felt faint when he reached home and  lay  down;  after  5
\nminutes,  when  he felt better and came out of the house, he saw his community
\npeople frightened and tense.  The nature of the occurrence, the brutal  manner
\nin  which  6  persons  were  attacked\/killed;  one  of the deceased’s head was
\nsevered; and three persons were attacked, resulting in  injuries;  would  show
\nthat the circumstances were such that the witnesses must have been emotionally
\ntraumatized and  terrified.  It would have taken several days for them to come
\nout of the shock.  It may be useful to refer to the evidence of P.W.7 at  page
\n79,  wherein,  he refers to the occurrence place as a “battlefield” and states
\nthat he would also have been  attacked  if  the  accused  knew  his  identity.
\nHence,  out  of  fear,  P.W.7 informed only his mother and did not tell anyone
\nelse.  It is not as though the prosecution only  relies  on  the  evidence  of
\nP.Ws.6 and  7.    There  are  other  eye  witnesses also and their evidence is
\ncorroborated by P.Ws.6 and 7.  If the prosecution depends only on the evidence
\nof PWs.6 and 7, then, it may not be safe to rely exclusively on their evidence
\nto convict the accused.  However,  this  is  a  case  where  there  are  other
\nindependent witnesses to speak about the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
34.   Mere  delay  in  examining  the  witness  is  not a ground to reject the
\nevidence  of  P.Ws.6  and  7  especially  when  their  evidence  is  otherwise
\nbelievable, natural  and  infuses confidence.  This is clear from the judgment
\nof the Supreme Court in Ganeshlal v.  State of Maharashtra,<\/a> (1992) 3 SCC  106,
\nwherein, it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” 10.   …    It  is  true  that  there was a delay of nearly 2-1\/2 months in
\nrecording his statement but it goes explained as  the  investigation  did  not
\nproceed  in  the  desired  lines initially and only after P.W.16 took over the
\ninvestigation, he recorded the statement of P.  W.6.  The dispensary  used  to
\nopen by 10.00  a.m.    and  his  presence  is natural.  He has no axe to grind
\nagainst the appellant or any of the members of his family.    He  is  also  an
\nindependent witness….   So P.W.6 being a natural witness his evidence cannot
\nbe doubted due to delay.  It is true that this Court in Balakrushna  Swain  v.
\nState of Orissa,<\/a> held that the evidence of witness recorded at late stage must
\nbe received with  a  pinch of salt.  Delay defeats justice.  But each case has
\nto be considered on its own facts.  In view of the above facts we have scanned
\nhis evidence carefully.  We are satisfied that he is a truthful witness.   The
\nHigh Court  is  well  justified  in placing reliance on his evidence.  In fact
\nmaterial part of his evidence was not subjected to  cross-examination,  except
\nsuggesting that  he  was  deposing falsely.  Under these circumstances he is a
\ntruthful and reliable witness.  ….”\n<\/p>\n
35.  In the present case, the evidence tendered by P.Ws.6 and  7  is  natural,
\nbelievable and  corroborated  by other evidence.  It is important to point out
\nat this juncture that it is not as if the prosecution  relies  solely  on  the
\nevidence of  P.Ws.6  and  7  to  prove  their case.  Even if their evidence is
\nignored, there is other credible and  reliable  evidence  to  prove  the  case
\nagainst the  accused  persons.   The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 thus only add to
\nthe corpus of evidence put forward by the  prosecution.    Further,  there  is
\nample corroboration  to  the  evidence  of  P.Ws.6  and  7.   In view of these
\ncircumstances, the conclusion of  the  trial  court  that  P.W.6,  Palani  was
\nprocured  at  a  later stage and he is not trustworthy and that P.W.7, Ganesan
\nhas been belatedly procured and his evidence is artificial  and  unbelievable;
\nis legally unsustainable and unsound.\n<\/p>\n
36.   The  trial  Court ought not to have accepted the plea of alibi set up by
\nA-27.  The accused takes recourse to a defence line that when  the  occurrence
\ntook  place,  he  was  far  away  from  the  place of occurrence, hence, it is
\nextremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime.    When  an
\naccused  takes  such  a stand, it is his duty to prove with absolute certainty
\nthe plea of alibi so as to exclude the possibility  of  his  presence  at  the
\nplace of  the  occurrence.    When the presence of the accused at the scene of
\noccurrence has been established  satisfactorily  by  the  prosecution  through
\nreliable evidence, normally, the court is slow to believe any counter evidence
\nto the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence took place.\n<\/p>\n
37.   The  Court below erred in relying on the evidence of P.W.15, who, during
\ninvestigation, had stated that, on 30.6.1997, A-27 left  the  office  at  2.00
\np.m.  and did not return to the office till 4 .9.1997.  In evidence, he states
\nthat he  (A-27)  was  in  the  office  till 5.00 p.m.  on 30.06.1997, which is
\ncontrary to his earlier version.  Exs.  D-4 and D-5 are self serving documents
\nand no reliance can be placed on them.  P.W.15  says  that  he  brought  those
\nrecords on  his  own accord to the court.  He did not sign anywhere in Ex.D-5.
\nEx.D-4 was in the custody of the Secretary, i.e., A-27.    Ex.D-4  only  shows
\nthat A-27 attended the office on 30-6-1997.  D.W.1 admits that he did not sign
\nin Ex.    D-5  and  there  is  no  necessity to show the contents of D5 to him
\n(D.W.1) as no one can question the Secretary about  his  leaving  the  office.
\nThe  accounts  which  were written on 30-6-1997 were not sent on the same day.
\nThe presence of A-27 is clearly spoken by P.Ws.2 and 3 and both of them allege
\nthat A-27 attacked P.W.2.  His name is also mentioned in Ex.   P-1  which  had
\ncome  into  existence at the earliest point of time and reached the Magistrate
\non the same night.  The defence has failed to prove the plea of alibi while on
\nthe other hand, the prosecution has proved the presence of A-27 at  the  scene
\nthrough the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and Ex.  P-1.\n<\/p>\n
38.   In  the present case there is overwhelming evidence of several witnesses
\nto establish  the  presence  of  A-27  at  the  occurrence  site.    In  fact,
\nP.W.3-injured  eye  witness,  convincingly  testified that he saw A-27 cutting
\nP.W.2, which version is also supported by the injuries noted  in  the  medical
\ncertificate.   Thus, the finding of the trial Court regarding the role of A-27
\nand placing reliance on the  alibi  evidence  are  legally  unsustainable  and
\nwrong.\n<\/p>\n
39.   The  prosecution  has  clearly  established  the  case,  attracting  the
\ningredients of Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes
\n(Prevention of  Atrocities) Act.  This can be seen in the context in which the
\nentire incident occurred.  Originally,  Melavalavu  village  Panchayat  was  a
\ngeneral constituency.   In 1996, the Panchayat was declared to be reserved for
\nthe SCs.  Prior to  1996,  A1  was  the  President  of  the  Panchayat.    The
\ndeclaration was  not  liked by the Ambalakarar community.  They did not want a
\nmember of the Scheduled Caste community  to  become  the  President  of  their
\nvillage  Panchayat and made efforts to prevent Scheduled Caste candidates from
\nbecoming the Panchayat President and tried to make it a  general  constituency
\nagain.   P.Ws.1, 47 and 49 depose about the events that followed in Melavalavu
\nsubsequent to the change in the nature of  constituency,  culminating  in  the
\ngruesome and brutal beheading of D-1-Murugesan and murder of 5 other Scheduled
\nCaste people.    Their  evidence would further show that when elections to the
\nMelavalavu Panchayat were announced to be  conducted,  initially  calling  for
\nnominations  to be filed by Scheduled Caste candidates for Panchayat President
\npost, due to the unilateral decision of  the  Ambalakarar  community  that  no
\nDalit  should  stand  for  election  and  threat,  the  Dalits  refrained from
\ncontesting the elections.\n<\/p>\n
40.  According to P.W.1, due to the persuasion of Governmental officials,  the
\nDalits  were  encouraged  to  file nominations for the elections to be held on
\n9-10-1996.  Thereafter, some Dalits including D-1,  Murugesan,  D-2  Bhoopathy
\nand one Vaiyamkaruppan filed nominations.  After the Dalits decided to contest
\nthe  elections,  houses  of  D3  Sevagamurthy,  P.W.12  Kancheevanam  and  one
\nPandiammal were burnt down.  Due to fear, the Dalit candidates withdrew  their
\nnominations, which  led  to postponement of the elections.  On 10-12-1996, the
\nelection dates were announced for the panchayat after it was  made  a  reserve
\nconstituency.  D1, D3 and one Karuppan withdrew their nominations.  Therefore,
\nthe elections  were  cancelled.    On 28-12-1996, dates for the elections were
\nannounced for the second time.   D-1  along  with  seven  others  filed  their
\nnominations for the post of President.  On the same day, there was rioting and
\nbooth  capturing  in  four  places by the persons belonging to Ambalakarar and
\nKallar community and the perpetrators (A3  and  A21)  were  found  guilty  and
\npunished.   Thereafter,  election was postponed and scheduled to be held again
\non 31-12-1996.  On that date, elections were held as scheduled  and  the  same
\nwas contested by D1 and seven others.  The deceased Murugesan won the election
\nand D2Mookan was elected as Vice President.  Deceased Murugesan was restrained
\nfrom  entering  the  panchayat  office  after the swearing in ceremony and the
\nmembers of the Ambalakarar community  did  not  allow  deceased  Murugesan  to
\nfunction as the President of the Panchayat and fulfil his official duties.  It
\nis  in the background of violence-soaked history, filled with caste bitterness
\nand hostility, the occurrence leading to the beheading  of  D1  Murugesan  and
\nmurder of 5 others took place.\n<\/p>\n
41.   The  evidence  is  clear  that  it  was  in order to terrorise the Dalit
\ncommunity and prevent them from contesting elections, they  were  attacked  by
\nthe  accused  party and it occurred solely because they belong to a particular
\ncommunity.  What needs to be stressed is that both the Panchayat President and
\nthe Vice-President were specifically targeted and killed.   Additionally,  the
\nother deceased  also  belong  to  the  SC  community.  That apart, the injured
\nwitnesses are also from the same community.   They  are  all  members  of  the
\nScheduled  Caste  and  because they happened to be Dalits, they were targeted.
\nThe preplanned nature of the attack and the sheer brutality of the murders was
\nalso clearly meant to terrorise the SC community and to show it as a lesson as
\nto what would happen to them if they decide to contest the elections in future
\nalso.  Hence, it is  clear  that  what  the  Ambalakarars  could  not  achieve
\nlegally,  they  sought  to  achieve it by resorting to violence and taking law
\ninto their own hands.  Even according  to  the  defence,  there  is  no  other
\npersonal enmity  for  attacking  the  victims.  Hence, the only reason for the
\nattack on the victims is that they belong to the Scheduled Caste and no  other
\nreason has  even  been  suggested  by  the  defence.  It is the clear case, in
\nwhich, atrocities were committed on the Scheduled Caste  People,  which  would
\nattract  the  ingredients  of  Section  3  (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  The judgement  of  the
\ntrial court suffers from non-application of mind and the trial court failed to
\ntake  into  consideration  the reliable testimony and the material evidence on
\nrecord.  Again, as rightly pointed out, the act of the accused was not  merely
\nto  murder  the  deceased  but  also  to  terrorise the entire Scheduled Caste
\ncommunity from daring to stand for Panchayat elections.\n<\/p>\n
42.  Further, P.Ws.5, 8, 9 and 10 also corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3
\nand the reasons given by  them  for  being  at  that  time  at  the  place  of
\noccurrence  are  convincing, hence, they cannot be said to be stock witnesses.
\nFurther, the reasons for being present at the place of  occurrence  have  been
\nclearly deposed by them and nothing has been done by the defence to prove that
\nthey  could not have been present at the time of occurrence by confronting the
\nwitnesses with suggestions, questions etc.  in the manner known to them.   For
\nthe  reasons  adduced  by  them,  they cannot be faulted for not informing the
\nPolice immediately, because the situation was tense, panic, and  volatile  and
\nthey were  threatened by the accused.  They have been throughout consistent in
\ntheir evidence.  The normal trend of any human being in such a situation is to
\nrun away from the place.   In  view  of  the  reality  of  the  situation  and
\nuniformity  of the statement of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be thrown
\nout or brushed aside.  These 4 independent witnesses corroborate the  evidence
\nof  P.Ws.1  to  3,  hence,  the  attack  of the defence that P.Ws.6 and 7 were
\nexamined only after  3  5  days  and,  therefore,  their  evidence  should  be
\nrejected; is not a ground for rejecting the evidence of these witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
43.   In  order  to  reject the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, the learned Sessions
\nJudge has stated that the delay in preparing the statement raises doubts about
\nthe case of the prosecution.  The statement recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
\nis not  acceptable  by  the  Court  because  the  prosecution  has  not  given
\nconvincing reasons  for  the  delay.    There is no reason for rejecting their
\nevidence.  The Supreme Court,  in  several  cases,  has  held  that  delay  in
\nrecording  statements  is  not  fatal  and  the evidence of the witness is not
\nweakened.  In the decision reported in 1971 SCC (Cri) 313  (Balakrushna  Swain
\nv.  State of Orissa), the Supreme Court<\/a> has laid down a proposition that delay
\nper  se  will  not  destroy the credibility of the statement of the witnesses.
\nMerely because of the delay, the evidence  of  witnesses  cannot  be  doubted.
\nDelay  in  recording  any  statement  of witness can give doubt due to various
\nreasons, but, it is for the Court to analyse the reason as to  whether  it  is
\nacceptable or not.  In this case, the delay was explained by the witnesses and
\nthe  enmity  between the communities loomed at large and any human being would
\nhave in his mind the tense situation prevailing at  that  time.    Hence,  the
\nevidence  of  P.Ws.6 and 7 cannot be discarded on that ground, especially when
\nthere is reasonable explanation for their act in not  communicating  the  fact
\nfor about  35 days.  Further, these witnesses also corroborate the evidence of
\nP.Ws.1 to 3, who are the injured eye witnesses along with P.Ws.5, 8, 9 and 10.
\nThe  evidence  of  all  these  eye  witnesses  establishes  the  case  of  the
\nprosecution without any shadow of doubt and all the accused mentioned in their
\nevidence are found to be guilty.\n<\/p>\n
44.   Further, the defence attacked the prosecution case on the point of delay
\nin lodging the FIR.  According to them, when the Police Station and the  Court
\nare  in  one  and the same place, the delay of 3 hours is fatal to the case of
\nthe prosecution.  In this case, the delay cannot be found fault with, because,
\nwithin three hours, the express FIR reached the Magistrate at  his  residence.
\nP.W.47  did  not  take much time in sending the information to the Magistrate.
\nThe Honourable Supreme Court, in Harbans Kaur v.  State of Haryana 2005 SCC  (
\nCri)  1213, held that even long delay in lodging the FIR could be condoned, if
\nthere is absence of motive for falsely implicating the accused  and  plausible
\nexplanation for  the  delay.   Thus, if the delay is explained, then it is not
\nfatal.  In the instant case, it took hardly three hours  for  the  FIR  to  be
\nplaced before  the Magistrate.  Hence, it can not be held that there was delay
\nin sending the FIR to  the  Magistrate.    Nothing  was  brought  out  in  the
\ncross-examination  to  show  that  the  delay  in  sending  the FIR has caused
\nprejudice to the accused.  Further, in the instant case, immediately after the
\noccurrence because of the threat from the accused, who were in  large  number,
\nwielding deadly weapons, the injured witnesses used a short-cut route to reach
\nthe  Melur Government Hospital and from there they were sent to the Government
\nHospital at Madurai.  P.W.47, Inspector of Police, Melur Police  Station,  was
\nnot present in the Police Station at the time of occurrence.  On his return to
\nthe  Police  Station, ascertaining the facts, he went to Madurai, came back to
\nthe station and registered the FIR.  We  are  satisfied  that  the  delay  was
\nreasonably  explained  by the prosecution and it cannot be held that there was
\nmotive for the delay and the delay itself will not convert the  case  doubtful
\nwhen  the evidence of eye witnesses is natural and their presence at the place
\nof occurrence cannot be doubted.  Therefore, contrary argument as to delay  is
\nliable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
45.  It is urged by the defence that in order to prove their case, they called
\nfor  the  FIR  register  and  also relied upon Ex.D-1 9-report of the District
\nCollector to the Chief Minister and Ex.D-13 report of P.W.44 to  the  District
\nCollector.  It is also stated that in order to show that the FIR marked in the
\nCourt is  different,  they  wanted to call for the FIR register.  According to
\nthem, since it was  not  produced  and  P.W.47  did  not  give  any  plausible
\nexplanation  for  non-production  of  the  same,  the accused are entitled for
\nacquittal.  We are unable to accept this  defence  theory  for  the  following
\nreason.   The evidence of eye witnesses is believable and the statement of the
\nwitnesses is probable.  P.W.47, in his cross-examination  by  A1  and  others,
\ngave  convincing  explanation  for  such  type  of registration as well as the
\nso-called discrepancies in the FIR.  The explanation offered is reasonable and
\nacceptable and there is no ground to reject the same.  As said  earlier,  when
\nthere are 6 murders, that too between two communities in the same village, the
\nInvestigating  Officer  could  not  be  expected  to  sit  idle  in  doing the
\ninvestigation systematically and as per rules.  He has to see the  monstrosity
\nof the  situation  and  attend to the things giving top priority.  Despite the
\ncritical situation, P.W.47 acted quickly and, in such circumstance, the way in
\nwhich the F.I.R.  was registered cannot be said to be illegal.  It may  be  an
\nirregularity  by the officer who conducted the investigation, but it is not an
\nillegality.  The irregularity itself cannot vitiate the trial.    The  reports
\nExs.   D-19 and D-13 cannot be taken to hold that the investigation is faulty.
\nHence, the defect, even if any, in registering or recording the FIR  will  not
\nthrow out the  case  of  the prosecution.  In State of Punjab v.  Hukum Singh,
\nreported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 167 9, it  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  that
\ninfirmities,  lapses,  omissions  and  failure of the Investigating Officer to
\nseize the firearms or empties for examination by  ballistic  expert,  are  not
\nfatal  in  view  of the categorical evidence of the eye witnesses, implicating
\nthe accused.  In the same decision, the delay in forwarding  the  FIR  to  the
\nMagistrate was  found  to  be  not  fatal.    The  case  of the prosecution is
\nsupported by the evidence of the eye witnesses.   Likewise,  the  injuries  on
\nP.Ws.1,  2 & 3, the evidence of the Doctors (P.Ws.21, 22 and 23) and the wound
\ncertificate (Exs.  P-46 to 48) clearly establish the presence of these injured
\nwitnesses at the place of  occurrence.    Similarly,  the  evidence  of  other
\nwitnesses,  except  P.W.4,  supported  the case of the prosecution in material
\nparticulars and no infirmity was brought out by the  defence.    Hence,  their
\nevidence  must  be  accepted  in  toto  and  conviction  must be based on such
\nreliable evidence.  In the case reported in 2005 SCC (Cri)  86  (Chava  Ankama
\nRao v.    State of A.P.), it was held that presence of the witnesses cannot be
\ndoubted,  because  injuries  will  prove  their  presence  at  the  scene   of
\noccurrence.  In the instant case, all the eye witnesses uniformly stated about
\nthe overt acts of the accused and hence the accused are guilty.\n<\/p>\n
46.   As  far  as  the  FIR  is  concerned,  it  is not a substantive piece of
\nevidence.  It can only  be  used  to  contradict  the  maker  thereof  or  for
\ncorroborating his  evidence, vide 1991 SCC (Cri) 976 ( Malkiat Singh v.  State
\nof Punjab).  As<\/a> held by the Supreme Court  in  various  decisions,  FIR  is  a
\ndocument to  set  the  law  in  motion.    In  this  case, the evidence of the
\neye-witnesses is very cogent, blemishless, unshaken and coherent.  In the case
\nreported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 210  State of Himachal Pradesh v.   Prithi  Chand,<\/a>
\nit  was  held  that  FIR  is  only  an  initiation  to  move the machinery and
\ninvestigate into a cognizable offence.  When the magnitude of the offences  is
\noverwhelming,  due  to minor discrepancies, the case of the prosecution cannot
\nbe thrown out.\n<\/p>\n
        47.  Learned counsel for the appellants, by relying  on  judgments  of
\nthe Supreme  Court  reported in 1997 SCC (Crl)333 (Binay Kumar Singh v.  State
\nof Bihar), 1998 SCC (Cri) 633 (Baddi Venkata Narasayya v.  State of A.P.)  and
\n2000 SCC  (Cri) 174 (Krishnegowda v.  State of Karnataka),<\/a> contended that when
\nlarge number of persons are implicated as accused, conviction can be sustained
\nonly if two or more witnesses specifically speak about  the  presence  of  the
\naccused.   In  the  present  cases,  the  prosecution implicated 40 persons as
\naccused, out of which, the learned Sessions Judge convicted 17  accused  under
\nSection 302 read  with  34  IPC.   and imposed life imprisonment on them.  The
\nremaining accused were acquitted.  We have already referred to the categorical
\nstatement of the injured eye witnesses  PWs.1  to  3  as  well  as  other  eye
\nwitnesses PWs-5,  8,  9  and  10.  They not only refer to one accused but also
\nvividly narrated the overt acts committed by the other accused.    Considering
\nthe  evidence,  both  oral  and documentary, relied on by the prosecution as a
\nwhole, we are satisfied that the prosecution  has  satisfied  the  above  test
\nalso.   Further,  nowhere, it is declared that, in every case, the prosecution
\nhas to be supported by two or more witnesses, speaking about  the  involvement
\nand overt  acts  committed  by  each  accused.    After  a  careful and proper
\nanalysis, we have already held that the evidence of the witnesses examined  on
\nthe side  of  the prosecution is quite acceptable.  Accordingly, we reject the
\nargument of the learned counsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
        48.  Mr.  Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for some  of  the
\nappellants, heavily relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported
\nin 1990 (L.W.    Criminal 175) (Johny and five others v.  State) and submitted
\nthat in view of non-production of the first information report  book,  general
\ndiary, etc., evidence of the injured eye witnesses cannot be relied on to base
\nthe conviction.    We  have  already  referred to the decisions of the Supreme
\nCourt to the effect that merely because F.I.R.   Register  and  general  diary
\nwere  not  produced,  it  may not be a ground to reject the entire prosecution
\ncase.  After a thorough discussion, we have concluded that the prosecution has
\nestablished its case by placing acceptable materials.\n<\/p>\n
        49.  As pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent  decision
\nreported in 2006  (2)  Scale  321  (State  of  A.P.    v.    S.Rayappa),<\/a> every
\ndiscrepancy in the witness statement is not fatal to the  prosecution’s  case;
\nand,  the  discrepancy, which does not materially affect the prosecution case,
\ndoes not create any infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
                50.  Considering the  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution,
\nnamely,  that  of  the injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and
\nwound certificates; the evidence of various eye witnesses, who spoke in detail
\nabout the occurrence without any blemish, and tested by  the  defence  at  the
\ntime  of  the  cross-examination;  the  explanation  by  P.W.4 7, Inspector of
\nPolice, for the delay in lodging the FIR; the arguments  with  regard  to  the
\nregistration  of  the  case  in  the  FIR  book;  and  the  explanation by the
\nprosecution with regard to  Exs.    D1,  13,  19  and  other  exhibits;  would
\nclinchingly  show  without  any  iota  of doubt that the accused committed the
\ncrime.  Accordingly, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        51.  Coming to the plea of Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel,  and
\nMr.Rathinam,  learned counsel, appearing for the Revision Petitioners, we have
\nalready observed that the prosecution has proved the conspiracy hatched by the
\naccused.   We  also  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  prosecution  has
\nestablished the  motive  aspect.    Though  the  learned  trial  Judge has not
\naccepted the  same,  for  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  we  hold  that  the
\nprosecution  has  established ‘conspiracy’ and ‘ motive’ beyond all reasonable
\ndoubt.  The involvement and overt acts of all the accused were clearly  spoken
\nto by the injured and other eye witnesses.  Though the learned trial Judge has
\nrejected  the  evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they are close
\nrelatives of the deceased and that they all belong to Scheduled Caste, law  is
\nclear  that  merely because they are relatives of the deceased, their evidence
\ncannot be ignored or rejected.  In such a case, it is the bounden duty of  the
\nCourt  to  scrutinise  their  evidence  cautiously  and  arrive  at  a  proper
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
        52.  We have already observed that even  the  trial  Judge  had  found
\nEx.P-1 as  genuine  and duly approved it.  Even in respect of the charge under
\nSection 3 (1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  (Prevention  of
\nAtrocities) Act, 1989, we have concluded that there is enough material to hold
\nagainst all  the  accused.    But,  unfortunately, the State has not preferred
\nappeal against th e acquittal of the remaining accused and only Revisions have
\nbeen filed by Pws-2, 5 & 9, questioning the order of acquittal.  Mr.V.Gopinath
\nand Mr.Rathinam, by drawing our attention to the decisions  reported  in  1981
\nCrl.L.J.  1016  (Ayodhya  Dube  v.    Ram  Sumer  Singh)  and<\/a> (2005) 1 SCC 115
\n(Satyajit Banerjee v.  State of W.B.) would contend that it is a fit case  for
\nretrial  and, if need arise, additional evidence could be recorded on retrial.
\nIt is true that in the earlier part of our Judgment, we accepted the  case  of
\nthe  prosecution  in  respect  of  conspiracy,  motive  and  overt acts of the
\naccused, as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, including the charge under
\nthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (  Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act,
\n1989.   However,  in the absence of appeal by the State and taking note of the
\nfact the unfortunate incident had occurred as early as on 30.06.1997 and  now,
\nnearly  9  full  years have lapsed, we are not inclined to remit the matter to
\nthe trial court for retrial regarding the charges levelled in respect  of  the
\nacquitted accused.  Accordingly, Crl.R.C.  No.285 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.  No.  9
\n069  of  2005,  filed for condonation of the delay in preferring the Crl.R.C.,
\nare liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        53.  In these circumstances, we confirm the  conviction  and  sentence
\nimposed  on  the  appellants  by  the  trial Court under Section 302 read with
\nSec.34 IPC and Sec.148 IPC.  Criminal Appeal Nos.803, 863  and  871  of  2001,
\nfiled by the convicted accused, as well as Crl.R.C.No.285 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.
\nNo.  9069 of  2005 in Crl.R.C.  SR No.  46945 of 2005, filed by P.Ws.2, 5 & 9,
\nare dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Director General of Police,
\nMylapore, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\nDistrict Crime
\nBranch, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
                                                Crl.  Appeal Nos.803, 863<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                & 871\/2001, Crl.R.C.  No.285
\n                                                of 2002 and Crl.M.P.  No.9069
\n                                                of 2005 in Cr.R.C.SR.No.46945
\n                                                of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal Nos.803, 863 & 871 of 2001 and Crl.R.C.No.285\/2002 <\/p>\n
P.  SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
& N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.P.Venkatasubramanian, who assisted the learned Advocate General  in
\ndisposal   of  the  above  matters,  is  entitled  to  fees  from  the  State.
\nAccordingly, we fix Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as the fees
\npayable to Mr.P.Venkatasubramanian.  The said amount  shall  be  paid  to  him
\nwithin a period of six weeks from to-day.\n<\/p>\n
                                                Crl.  Appeal Nos.803, 863<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                & 871\/2001, Crl.R.C.  No.285
\n                                                of 2002 and Crl.M.P.  No.9069
\n                                                of 2005 in Cr.R.C.SR.No.46945
\n                                                of 2005.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19\/04\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Crl.A.No.803 of 2002 and Crl.A.No.863 of 2002 and 871 of 2001 and Crl.R.C.No.285\/2002 and Crl.M.P.No. 9069 of 2005 in Crl.R.C. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-05T11:58:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"61 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-05T11:58:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":11903,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-05T11:58:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-05T11:58:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"61 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-05T11:58:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006"},"wordCount":11903,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006","name":"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-05T11:58:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alagarsamy-a-1-vs-state-by-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alagarsamy (A-1) vs State By on 19 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}