S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS.

..... A ## S. SUBBULAXMI v. ## KUMARASAMY & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 2007) **B** JULY06, 2017 .. **[N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.)** _Penal Code, 1860_ - _ss. 34, 302 and 506(11)_ - _Accused as_ - _well as victim parties are closely related persons Land dispute_ C _between parties resulting in death of appellant's husband_ - _Conviction of accused ulss. 34, 302 and 506(11) and sentenced accordingly by the trial court_ - _Order of conviction set aside by the High Court_ - _interference with_ - _Held: Not called for_ - _Applying judicial scrutiny to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution story not trustworthy_ - _Prosecution failed to prove the_ **D** _guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt_ - _Material on record shows huge suspicion and the evidence adduced on record full of contradictions_ - _On basis of such evidence, not safe to fasten the liability on the accused_ - _Investigating agency ignored its paramount duty of bringing home the guilt of the accused with probable_ E _evidence as admissible under law, rather, spent time and mind on creating 'two occurrences and substantiating the same with the circumstances_ - _Thus, the High Court had compelling and substantial reasons to set aside the order of conviction and sentence against the accused_ - _Evidence._ F G _Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors._ **(2016) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 1 SCR 913;** _Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. v. State ofBihar_ **(1988) 2 SCC 95 : [1988] 3 SCR 1;** _Appabhai & Anr: v. State of Gujarat_ **(1988) Suppl. SCC 241;** _State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu & Ors._ **AIR 1993 SC 2644 : [1994] 1 Suppl.** . **SCC 590;** _Ashish Batham v. State of MP._ **(2002) 7 SCC 317: [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 146;** _Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana_ **(2014) 11 SCC 335 - referred to.** " **H** 238 239 S.·SUBBULAXMlv. KUMARASAMY & .ORS. |||S.·SUBBULAXMlv. KUMARASAMY|S.·SUBBULAXMlv. KUMARASAMY|S.·SUBBULAXMlv. KUMARASAMY&|&.ORS.|.ORS.|239| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||||||/,|| |||||||/|| ||||CaseLaw|Reference|-- _/_|_/_/|A| ||||||/||| ||i|(2016] 1SCR913 .||referredto .|to .|Para9|| ||I|(1988) 3SCR1|1|referredto||Para9.|| ||I||||||| ||I<br>I .|(1988)Suppl.sec241<br>-||referredto||Para9|| |i<br>'I||11994] 1Suppl.<br>(2002)_2_SuppL|Suppl.sec590<br>SuppLSCR146|referredto<br>referredto||Para13<br>Para13|B| |||(2014jit.sec|sec335|referredto|·|Para.IS|| |||CRIMINAL APPELLATE lURISDICTIQN: Criminal Appeal No..|||||| |||1737of2007.|·|··. · ... ·'-,.,.<br>...||. · ... ·'-,.,.<br>·|c| |||FrQmtheJudgment~dOrderdated~.{)3iooSoftheHighCourt|||||| |i ·...||...ofJudi~a\ure!llMadrasin Criminal Appeal No. 619||in Criminal Appeal No. 619of!997.|||| ! ' Jayant Muth Raj, Ms. Malavika J., C. K. Sasi, Advs. for the Appellant M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv., R. Nedumaran, S. Syed Mahaboob, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Ms. Maha Lakshmi, Partha Sarathi, Advs. for the Respondent. D , The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . N. v. RAM;\NA. J, lo Aggneved by thejud@iieiiidaied '22..i E March. 2005 passed eyihe High Court ofJudicatuk iit M~s'hl Criiniiial Appe~I No~ 6~9. of I _997,_ th~ aJ)pCJlant ( coniplainautJ filed the piesent appeitl. By the judgment impugoed herein,~. High Court has set aside the 9rder ofCQnviction passed byibe trial'Court for the offences under Secti~llS 34, 30z and _S06(Il)_ Indian Penal _Code,_ l 860 (!PC) and acquitted · F the accused . -· . · . 2. Brief facts leading to thi~ appeal as discerned from the prosecution case are that tht! members ofvictim as well as accused gn;.ips are' closely related to one another. S. Subbulaxmi who is the appellant/complainant is the wife of the decease<l-Subramani. Respondent No l'(Al) and Respondent No. 3 (A3) arehl!Sbl\lld an4 w~e. Respondent . No. 2 (A2)is the coiisill brother of Respondent N1>. l. (A I). ·Respondent . No. 3 (A3) is $ister of the deceased-SubraIDaiii. dOvindswamy (DW2) is the father of Al. An amount ofRs.40,000/~ was hiiuded over to the father _of_ deceased at the time of mamage ofappellant with the deceased G · ..· · **==> picture [23 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> • ~· I<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> H - -~· . .. 240 SUPREME COURT REPOR,TS · , . .. . [2017] 7 S.C.R. I 1 . . : • ·· .. · · · .. · · · · · · ,A and the same was deposited in a bank in the.names ofappellant and the "'-· - . deceased. The father daugli.ter~in~law (appellant)' of deceased wanteii' his son (deceased) and to iend an WDQUnt ofRs:40,000/~ for the . . , · purpose of purchasing some agricultural land in the nwnes of his son-in; ,law (Al) and hjs fat~e((D~2>; It appears .that ther~,was :in oral . ,, . . agreement between'the ·deeeased and his father. to the effect that in · ,B exchange ofRS.40,000/-, father of the decea5ed will tranSfer thiee acies . , ... · .. ' : . ofland to his son. After same time, the father of deceased, instead of .. . . .· . ; '. .;-.1 ' tranSferrlng the proiiiised three acres ofland to his' ~Oll, leased OUt the , .. ; : '•· • . '.• S\lme to.thi;:fathet ofA,.1, giving way to Strained refatioriS 6eh_veen the·: , _. .. 'deceased and his brother-in-law (Al)which further aggravated when. · I • . _t·_ the deceasCd started cultivatiJig paddy in the land leased out tci'the' fl}ther . . .· ·' · · ; ofALTuW.;itappearstherewasadisputebe!Weenthepartiesinrespect ·.• ·: .. _!'_ · ::::o,rthispi.~e~fl~~: ·;.·:.' i ... ' < "·::"; · ~:····.· .. : ; · · · · · 3. In the evening hours of 15,. September, 1994, the .. appellant · .. ·' while ciltting grass iri her field saw the responden!S (Al toAJ) working. • _:_ . . · · , D '. .fu·a nearby field who created a commotion by saying to eacii other that . . .. . . · ·. ·they are not going to spare the appellant's husband Subramani (deeeased) .. ::'.'. ,,, _:.._ • .... ·since he beat DW' 2 (father of AI). ··Soon thereiifter, 'respondent No.'!.· •.:·:.;:': .. , _·i;_ .. ··(Al) leftthefieldc~inganiro.nrod usedforienioyingc<iconut husk, · · · . · . · · · · alongwithA2 andA3.Worried bj theiraggression,awJlantl COIDf1lainant . ; ~ !.;. ' \ "'. 'fieri:in followed lheID; on the "\vay sh~met PW s 2 and 3' and all -~f theni . • '':· .. ~:. l'.'.~ .· 'cPWs 1,2& 3)followedtlieaceusedp3rty;.iridattheplace'of'occurieni:{ • . · ' · >; : . . .. ··. 0 they saw DW2 sitting'on the road and husband of the. appellant· .· ·. '; · : :;. _·f_ ; : (deceaSed) standing at some nearby place. On seeingithe deceased; Al :. ' ,._ ... ;;rafitowardshUllandattackedwith theironrodgivinga blow on his head .. :·. -' • . . • . :and stabbed on the left cheCkJ :A2 and A3 'also' picked up 'some can ·~.·; .. ··.: . 'p' ····twigs andcontinuously attaeked on the legs and liands'ofthedeceased. _'"i_ ''; " ' '. ·. ' After beating the deceased with iron rod and cart twigs, all the·aei:used · 1 '.''-'[1 ] . '" .·' • • thie\v' away their arms. and left the scene of offence: After that;'PWl ·. . . : _::.?_ ;: _:_ <. ·:'l~ith'the' help o( PW2,' took lier htisband to the Government H9spital; ·· .. · · · .. · · · · · · _•>:.si_ ·.e:,\ '~.oae'.ii1 a .taxi'where the Doctor (PW to> Jeclareiibim dead, ·and · . .. . .. .. informed police~ Sub-Inspector of Chennjmalai Police Station (PW9)' • . _:_ ,<;J . visited hospital, recorded the staiement of PW 1 (Ext.P 1) iffid registered _:_ .·. the saine as Crime No: 398/94 .. Meanwhile, one Ponnusamy (not . examined) got adilii#ed father'of Al. (DW2) in the same Government · ~·· • · •. ·· · _:_ l!ospital.at Erode; ·Jlie ~? I?,ii.Ctor wh,o .had examined the deceased . .. ' . · ,,also ·' ,.·•·'.'••"f ,examjne4·DW2:>Laterp~P,W9 ..... , •.••.• ·--, ,-.'--·'·'·· ·--_ ........ recordecl -·-'-·<· ..• !)W~:ss.tatemen.t ' . iffid .. , c,. ···~He ·~ _.;,: ___ . . . 241 ## S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. (N. V. RAMANA, J.] registered Crime No. _399194_ against the deceased and undertook A investigation in both the cases. 'The inquest was conducted on the next day and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. 1.0. s'eized bloodstained iron rod, cart twigs, bloodstained and normal earth and recorded statements of the doctors. The accused were arrested on 17th September, 1994 from a bus-stand, blood stained dhoti and shirt 8 worn by A2 were seized. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. The investigation in Crime No. 399/94 was continued for about three months and finally the proceedings were dropped by PW 11 - Inspector of Police for the reason that the accused in that case has already died on 15-09-1994. 4. During the course of trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two witnesses were examined for defence. After appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, the Principal Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty. Accordingly, the l ''accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The 211 d and 3rd accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 34 read with Section 302 IPC. All the three accused were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 506(11) IPC. All the sentences were however directed to run concurrently. 5. All the three accused approached the High Court questioning the order of conviction imposed by the trial Court. Having not satisfied with the case of the prosecution, the High Court acquitted all the three accused of all the charges framed against them. Therefore, l:ieillg unsatisfied with the order of acquittal, the wife of the deceased/ complainant is before us in this appeal impugning the judgment passed by the High Court. 6. The learned senior CO\jnsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant contended that the High Court gravely erred in not taking into consideration the unimpeachable testimony of the eye witness which is cogent, consistent, reliable, corroborating and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned senior counsel argued that the place of occurrence, recovery of weapons used, the chemical analyst's report clearly establish the case of the prosecution and the High Court completely ignored to delve into these material facts. C D E F G H [2017] 7 S.C.R. 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 7. The learned s.enior counsel further advanced his argument that the injuries on DW2 were clearly explained by the prosecution. The statement of PW2 and the Accident Information Report of PW2 support ·- the case of the prosecution ahd it is duly corroborated by the evidence · of doctor. The.interpolation with regard to the time ·of incident, according to the senior counsel, does not affect the case of the prosecution and that cannot be a ground to acquitthe accused. A B 8. The learned senior counsel summed up his arguments by submitting that the judgment of the High Court is perverse and untem1ble as it did not take .into consideration the unimpeachable evidence of independent witness and that the view taken by the High· Court in acquitting the accused is unsustainable in law in the presence of overwhelming evidence in the form of eye witness, observation mahazars, sketches; forensic reports with regard to blood stains on material objects and weapons used by .the accused for committing the crime. c 9. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied upon D the decision of this Court in _Sadhu Saran Singh_ Vs. _State of Uttar Pradesh_ & _Ors._ (2016) 4 SCC 357, _Hare Krishna Singh_ & _Ors._ Vs. _State ofBihar_ (1988) 2 SCC 95 and _Appablrai_ & _Anr._ Vs. _State of Gujarat_ ( 1988) Supp. SCC 241. 10. Mr. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned senior counsel appearing E for the accused/respondents, supported the impugned judgment. The learned senior counsel. for the accused submitted that the two FIRs are created by PW9 and the entire investigation has been conducted in a partisan manner in order to prove the alleged crime against the accused. The police changed the original features of the incident and projected as F if there are two different incidents; one at 4.00 p.m. and the other at 5.00 p.m. According to the learned senior counsel, there is only one occurrence and it took place at 4.00 p.m. 11. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel.that in fact it was the deceased who raised violence upon DW2 and injured him badly. G DW2 never gave a complaint to the police but it is a creation by the police preventing the accused taking the plea of self defence. 12. It is vehemently argued that when Subramani was already declared dead on 15.09.1994 itself in the hospital, how the complaint received from DW2 at 10.00 p.m. was registered by the police at 2.00 H a.m. in the night and the police prolonged the investigation till 28.12.1994 243 S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.] and led a perfunctory investigation. A 13. The learned senior counsel relied upon _State ofAndhra Pradesh_ Vs. _Punati Ramulu_ & _Ors._ AIR 1993 SC 2644, and _Ashish Batham_ Vs. _State of M.P._ ( 2002) 7 SCC 317. 14. The learned senior counsel pointed out at the !aches of the prosecution case with regard to non-mentioning of the details in the B Accident Register as to who brought the deceased to the hospital and what is the time of incident. But, contrary to this, in the Acciden.t Register pertaining to DW2, it was specifically mentioned that PonnW?wamy brought him to hospital and the incident took place at 4.00 PM. Secondly, as per the post-mortem certificate, the deceased sustained 6 serious bleeding c injuries on scalp of the head and according to the appella.nt/complainant, she brought the accused to the hospital and she kept his head on her lap. There is no material to show that her saree was stained w,ith blood nor was there any seizure of the same. Hence, it is a fabricated story. 15. The learned senior counsel summed up his argument by D submitting that the police have led atainted investigation only to help the appellant by implicating Al to A3 because of their long strained relationship. The statement of DW2 was recorded.by the police and admittedly he was severely injured and the police did not obtain any certificatefrotn the Doctor before recording l:lis statement which shows E that ~here is no legitimate enquiry .. The police o~tained the thumb impression ofDW2 on the ground that he sustained injuries which proved to be wrong as DW2's left forearm was fractured. According to him, the entire prosecution story is aimed at only implicating the accused persons in thefalse case, which the High Court has rightly disbelieved and there is no reason for this Court to interfere. Learned senior counsel F relied upon the decision of this Court in _Joginder Singh_ Vs. _State of Haryana_ (2014) 11 SCC 335. E F 16. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length and perused the material available on record in detail. In a case like this where the defence plea is that the prosecution had withheld the actual occurrence and. cre'ated two separate incidents with tampered and suppressed documen!t (Ext. Pl 0 and Ext. Pl 4), it was obligatory for the Courts below to ensure whether the prosecution has come up with the true version or' merely presented a perfunctory and tailored case to suit its plan of securing conviction of the accused Now, the simple question G H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A that falls for our consideration is - whether the High Court was right in disbelieving the prosecution story and acquitting the accused/ respondents to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. 17. It is clear from the material placed before us that the accused as well as victim parties are closely related persons and they were at B loggerheads over a land dispute which created strained relationship between them leading to the untoward incident. We have meticulously gone through the Complaint (Ext. Pl) of the appellant and the statement of DW2 (Ext. Pl4) recorded by PW9. lt is on record that PW9 in his examination categorically stated tnat on the day of incident at 7 .30 pm, the Head Constable from Erode Government Hospital Outpost Police c Station informed him over phone that Subramani (deceased) involved in the scuffle had died in the hospital and DW2 was admitted with injuries. After that, he visited hospital, received complaint (Ext. Pl) from PW l at 8.45 pm and registered it at 12.30 am (Ext. P9). He further deposed that he received complaint from DW2 (Ext. Pl4)at 10 pm in the hospital D and registered it at 2.00 am on 16.9.1994 (Ext. PIO). However, it is somewhat mysterious that though he received complaint from PWl at 8.45 pm, he did not register it till 12.30 am, akin to this, the complaint from DW2 though received at l 0 pm, was not registered till 2.00 am and no explanation is forthcoming for the delay. On the other hand, DW2 made a definite statement that Ext. Pi4 complaint was never given by E him to the police and police did not approach him at all.' 0: 18. It is the case of prosecution that Crime No. 399/94 was registered basing on the Complaint (Ext.Pl4) of DW2 and PW! l investigated the case. Admittedly, PWs 9 and 11 are well aware of the fact that the accused in Crime No. 399/94 has already died on 15-09~ F 1994. The record shows that prosecution has carried on the investigation against the dead person till 28-12-1994 and finally closed the proceedings on the very ground that the accused has already died on 15-09-1994. Though the investigation went on for three months, the prosecution has failed to bring on record statements of witnesses, if examined, or any G incriminating material that was seized. 19. There is also lack of satisfactory explanation from the prosecution about interpolation carried out on Ext.P 1 and Ext. P9 changing the time of occurrence from 4 pm to 5 pm. Undoubtedly, this lacuna goes to the-root of the case inasmuch as the interpolation in the printed H version of First Information Report creates any amount of doubt on the f S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. 245 (N. V. RAMANA, J.] credibility of the investigating agency and leads to the inference that mischief is perpetuated by the investigating officer. At this point, the contention of learned senior counsel for the accused gains momentum that investigating agency deliberately tampered the FIR interpolating the time so as to create a wrong impression that two incidents of scuffle might have occurred. 20. Another circumstance that raises doubt on the prosecution case is also due to the peculiar conduct of PW9 and PW! I who even though were aware of the fact that DW2 with serious bodily injl1ries was admitted in the same hospital where the deceased was admitted, however, failed to perform their duty as spontaneously as they should in ordinary course. The Doctor (PW 10) of Government Hospital deposed that at 6.05 pm on 15.9.1994 he attended the victim DW2 and noted the following injuries (Ext. D2) on his body: 1. A crush wound 6 x 2 ems on the right side of the head exposing the skull was seen. There was bleeding in the said wound. A B C D 2. There was a cut injury 2 x _Yi_ x Y2 cm on the right eyebrow. 3. A bruise injury was seen on the right jaw. The movement of the jaw was less. · 4. A crush injury 8 x 5 cm .was seen on th~ right side of the head. There was· bieeding in the said wound .. E 5. A crush injury 5 x 5 cm exposing the skull was seen on theright . side of the head. 6. A cut injury 3 x Y2 cm exposing the skull was seen on the top of the head. F 7. A crush injury 4 x 4 cm exposing the skull was seen on the back of the head. The Doctor (PWIO) further deposed that X-rays ofDW2's rib, head and left leg was also taken and there was a doubt of fracture in his leg, hence he was referred to the Coimbatore Government Hospital for G further treatment. 21. It appears that police have not taken any interest to shift the injured DW2 to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore. If PW9 really questioned DW2 in the hospital and prepared his statement (Ext: P 14), it H 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. - A is expedient and obligatory on· his part to take due care, consult the attending Doctor and conscientiously shift the injured to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore on the advice of Doctor (PW 10). However, DW2 denies the same and states that police never came to him and there is no reasonable explanation from the prosecution side on this aspect. Rather, the statement of PW 11 in this connection is annoying that since - B the accused in the complaint given by DW2 died, he did not make further enquiry with regard to the particulars of private hospital and Doctor from whom DW2' got treatment. Be that as it may, the injured DW2 got himselfadmitted in a private hospital, namely, Devi Hospital at Erode on 16.9 .1996 where Dr. S. Nataraj (DWI) found the following injuries (Ext. - c DI) on the body ofDW2: - l. There was a sutured wound 6 cm in length ori the left side of the head. · 2. There was a sutured wound 2 cm iri length on the exterior of . the left eye. · D 3. There was a sutured wound 8 cm in length on the right side of the head. 4. A sutured wound 3 cm in length is seen on the centre of the head: · · · . . . . E 5. A sutured wound 4 cm iri length is seen tn the back side of the h~ad. 6. The tower part of the left forearm had swelling in it. · F 7. An 8 c.in sutured wound was seen on the front side of the left leg swelling was there. Movement of the bone was also there. The .Doctor (DWI) further deposed that X rays of head, left forearm and left leg were taken and on observation the ulna bone of his left hand was seen to be fractured and both the two bones in the left leg was also seen to be fractured. In his opinion, injuries I to 5 abovementioned are simple in nature but injury Nos. 6 and 7 are grievous G innature. 22. Considering the nature of injuries found on the body ofDW2, it gives way to a serious doubt in our mind on the credibility of the prosecution theory that according to PW9; DW2 affixed his left thumb impression on the Complaint (Ext. Pl4) which was registered basing on· H 247 S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.J the FIR (Ext. PlO), as he could not sign due to injuries on his hand. A Moreover, on an assessment of Ext. PlO and Ext. Pl4 with the evidence of DW1 and the wound certificate (Ext. DI), it is crystal clear th.at the reason given by the prosecution for taking· thumb jmpression in the Complaint is baseless as fracture was found only on the left forearm of DW2 andthere was no injury on his right hand with which he could have signed being a literate man. In this context, absence of any reasonable B explanation from the prosecuti.on also assumes significance and consequently affects the veracity of the case projected by the prosecution. Added to this, there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by DW2 with that of Accident Register (Ext.Pll). There are also contradictions as to the correctness of injuries sustained C by DW2 in Ext. Pl 4, Accident Register (Ext. P 11 ), depositions of PWIO (Doctor), DWI (Doctor), PW9 and DW2 himself .. Thus, considering the circumstances as a whole, we feel that the investigating agency should have acted with more diligence to ensure fulfillment of its solemn duty. But the record predominantly shows that the prosecution has adopted a D very casual and callous approach. 23. In the light of the statement given by DW2 to PW9 (Ext. Pl4), we have come across another glaring defect in the prosecution case. As per the prosecution case, DW2, who has suffered serious injuries on his body including head injuries, has given statement to PW9 (Ext. P 14) in the following terms: "Due to the injuries sustained by me, I became unconscious. l had been admitted to the Government Hospital Erode for treating of my injuries. After gaining consciousness and on enquiry, I came to know that my son Kumarasamy, my relative's son Palanisamy, my daughter-in-law Vasanthamani, all the three on hearing the information about my sustaining injuries in the quarrel went and hit Mani @ Subramani who was standing in the place where he . hit me, on his head and both of his legs and inflicted seVere injuries and that he died on way while he was being carried to the Erode Hospital for treatment". After going through the above part of the complaint, we are quite surprised how a person who fell unconscious owing to serious head injuries gives statement to a police officer implicating his own family members including son and daughter-in-law. Other deviating feature of this testimony is that as per Ext. P 14, DW2 sustained injuries only on his E F G H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R. - A left leg and head. But as per prosecution versions and Accident Register (Ext. _P_ 11 ), he suffered injuries on various other parts such as jaw, mandibles, left forearm, chest etc. Undoubtedly, if DW2 had really made the complaint, the injuries mentioned in the Accident Register (Ext.P 11) would have found place in the Ext. P 14. The careful evaluation of these_ discrepancies strengthens the doubt in our mind and we find force in the - B contention of .the learned senior counsel for the accused/respondents that Ext. P 14 is only the oblivious and unduly creation of investigating agency to magnify the case of prosecution. Having carefully considered this aspect of the matter and due to the doubtful nature of the very circumstance, we fire unable to agree with the. case put forth by the - C prosecution. > 24. It is also the case of the prosecution that upon hearing the news of deceased attacking DW2, Accused Nos. I, 2 and 3 rushed to "the scene of occurrence and saw DW2 with serious injuries while the deceased was found standing at a distance of 80 feet away and they D instantaneously attacked him and left the place. The conduct of accused persons in fleeing away from the place of offence leaving behind severely injured relative raises a serious doubt on the genuineness of prosecution case. The fundamental and basic presumption one can derive from the circumstance is that when severely wounded DW2 is sitting at the place of occurrence sufferii1g with bodily injuries, as a matter of general human E conduct, accused Nos. I and 3; being the own son and daughter-in-law of injured DW2, would have run to him for offering first aid and taking appropriate steps for his immediate tr.eatment. But, unlike normal human behavior, the accused, as per prosecution, rushed to the deceased who was still present at the place of offence for one hour after hitting DW2. > F If the prosecution story is to be believed, the accused after indulging in a fight with the deceased, threw their weapons at the place of offence and ran away ignoring and leaving the severely injured DW2. Evidently, the incident took place on 15.9.1994 and all the accused were arrested from a bus-stand on 17.9.1994. On arrest, a blood-stained shirt and dhoti worn by A2 was recovered but no recovery was made from Al G and A3. It is quite unbelievable that the accused No. 2 from the time of occurrence of the incident on 15.9.1994 till his arrest on 17.9.1994, wore > the same blood-stained shirt and dhoti. If that is so, it is also implausible that there were no bloodstains on the clothes of other accused, particularly Al, who as per the evidence of PW!, aggressively participated in the H crime. 249. S. SUBBULAXMI v. KUMARASAMY & ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.) 25. Analyzing the evidence of PW! (complainant), we doubt the A plausibility of her depositions in the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, as per postmortem report (Ext.P3), the deceased sustaiiled six serious and bleeding injuries on the scalp of his.head. PW! stated that she carried her husband in a car keeping his head in her lap from the place of occurrence to Government Hospital, Erode. The Accident B Register (Ext. P12) does not indicate the fact that it was PW! who brought the deceased to the hospital. As per record, no bloodstains were reported to be found·on her clothes, nor was there any seizure. Her conduct in.the situation raises doubt that when her husband with severe grievous injuries was struggling for life, she should have first taken him to the nearest hospital and complained at the nearest police station. But, C strangely; PW! neither went to the Chennimalai Government Hospital whiCh is.nearest to the place of 9ccurrence and falls on the .way to Erode, nor lodged comph.tint at the Chennamalai Police Station. On the· contrary,. she opted for a distant Government Hospital and a distant police . station. A meticulous examination of her evidence makes it improbable D and suffice it to say that she _is_ not a reliable witness basing on whose evidence, the accused can be convicted. C D 26. Thus, applying our dispassionate judicial scrutiny to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel thatthe prosecution story is not trus_tworthy to show the guilt of the accused, The material on record portrays huge 'suspicioI1 in OU!: mind and the evidence adducJ;jd on record is full of contradi.ctions arid basing on such evidence, it is ncit safe to fasten the liability on the acc~sed. it appears to us thatthe investigating agency ignored its paramount duty of bringing home the guilt of the accused with probable evidence as admissible under law. Rather, the investigating agency appears to have spent time and mind on creating two occurrences and substantiating the same with the circumstances. The prosecution failed. to exonerate itself from the duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyonci reasonable doubt, 27. The defence side has also raised certain other discrepancies in the prosecution case, such as the reliability of statement of PW2 (Kandasamy), injuries sustained by DW2 on left eye-brow, .lower jaw, chest, mandible etc .. and disparity in the statements of prosecution witnesses, but we feel there is no need to further delve into the matter. · E E G 28. In our considered view, the High Court has compelling and l. substantial reasons to set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by H 250 SUPREME·COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R. - A the trial Court against the accused and no interference can be made out with the same. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is deyoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. **==> picture [312 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>