Krishnan And Anr Vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2002

Citation: Krishnan v. State, (2003) 7 SCC 56

Date of Judgement: July 28, 2003

Appellant: Krishnan and Another

Respondents: State Represented by Inspector of Police

Counsel For Appellants:

• K. Rajendra Chowdhary
• Senior Advocate (S. Nanda Kumar, V. Vijayan. M. Yogesh Khanna, Jitender Shankar, Anuj Srivastava and Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates, with him)

Counsel For Respondents:

• A.T.M. Sampath
• P.N. Ramalingam
• V. Balaji. Advocates

Bench: Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat

Statutes:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 and 11
• Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154

Cases Referred:

1. 1998 SCC (Cri) 687: AIR 1998 SC 323, Charan Singh v. State of Punjab
2. (1988) 4 SCC 302: 1988 SCC (Cri) 928: AIR 1988 SC 2154, State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal

Issue:

• Contentions pertaining to Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased on the alleged date, time and place?

Facts:

1. The two appeals are directed against the common Judgment of the Karnataka High Court whereby Conviction of the Appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 thereof and the sentence for Imprisonment for Life was confirmed.
2. Maheswari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’) was allegedly having an illicit relationship with Azagu Raja, Sub Inspector of Police who is the husband of Minnalkedi.
3. The said Minnalkedi is the daughter of Ayyar Thavar. Accused Porutchyelvan is the son of Accused No.1- Ayyar Thavar and Accused Krishnan and Ganesan are cousins of Porutchyelvan.
4. Originally, 7 persons were alleged to be the authors of a Homicide in which Maheswari lost her life on 3.12.1991. Accused Mylakkal is the wife of Ayyar Thavar and another Accused Selvi was their daughter.
5. Mylakkal, Minnalkedi and Selvi were Acquitted of the Charges by the trial Court. Originally, all the Accused persons were charged of Offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 341 Indian Penal Code.
6. The Appellants Ayyar Thavar and Porutchyelvan were in addition Accused of committing offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code.
7. Deceased Maheswari was working as a Branch Post Master in a village post office. She was unmarried. One year prior to the occurrence she developed intimacy with Azagu Raja. This was objected to by the Accused persons and Accused Krishnan and Ganesan reprimanded the deceased and warned her when she was returning from her place of work not to have any connection with Azagu Raja.
8. Accused-appellant Ayyar Thavar inflicted a cut injury on the backside of the deceased. Accused Porutchyelvan gave a blow with aruval on the head of the deceased on the right side. Similarly, Accused- appellants Krishnan and Ganesan caused cut blows on her back. When the deceased fell down, the Accused- Appellant Ayyar Thavar inflicted another cut on the right ear lobe. Thereafter, all the four Accused persons ran away.
9. Parameswaran Deceased’s brother entrusted the body of the deceased with Rengan (PW2) and rushed to the nearby Police Station and gave a report at about 3.00 p.m. Periyakaruppan (PW11), reduced the same into writing and registered a case and prepared a First Information Report and sent the same to the Court and the concerned higher officials.

Contentions by Appellant:

• Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that it would be extremely unsafe to sustain the conviction on the basis of Parameswaran’s evidence as the FIR filed by him seems to be after calculated deliberation and cannot be the statement of a person who claimed to have seen the ghastly attacks on his sister.
• Even with such deliberate planning also the complaint has many loose ends. No definite role was ascribed to Accused Appellants Krishnan and Ganesan.
• In view of accepted hostility of PW1 with the Accused Appellants, the defense plea that PW1 and other members of his family were the authors of the crime is more probable.
• It is stated that improvement has been made in the Court from what was stated in the statement which was treated as FIR. The claim that PW1 ran after the Accused and the deceased on getting up after having fallen down by the impact of the blows given by the Accused-Appellants Ayyar Thavar and Porutchyelvan, has not been stated in Court. The medical evidence is at variance with the ocular evidence and, therefore, casts doubt thereon.
• According to the Prosecution, blows were given on the back and this did not result in fatal injuries which were attributed to the assaults by the Appellants Ayyar Thavar and Porutchyelvan.
• It was submitted that the defense plea of alibi taken by Accused-Appellant Ganesan has been wrongly discarded by the trial Court and the High Court and similar is the case with the plea taken by Accused-Appellant Krishnan.
• Here, it has to be noted that the Accused-Appellant Ganesan has died on 12.4.2003 and his appeal has abated in terms of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Contentions by Respondent:

• Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PW1 has been carefully analysed by both the trial Court and the High Court. The First information report was lodged immediately after the incident and the relevant particulars were given.
• The fact that the first information report was given almost immediately, rules out any possibility of deliberation to falsely implicate any person.
• The highly hypothetical imaginative story advanced by the defense to contend that PW1 and his family members killed the deceased is too hollow to be accepted. If that was really so, they would not have chosen the place and the time for doing so. There is not even a shadow of material to substantiate the plea.
• The ocular evidence being cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any, with the medical evidence are not of any consequence.
• The plea of alibi advanced by the Accused-Appellants Krishnan and Ganesan has been rightly discarded after elaborate analysis by the trial Court and the High Court.
• Section 34 has clear application to the facts of the case, when PW1’s evidence is considered. They have been rightly convicted by the application of Section 34.
• It is trite that where the eye-witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. 

Obiter Dicta:

• A charge under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code presupposes the sharing of a particular intention by more than one person to commit a criminal act.
• The dominant feature of Section 34 is the element of participation in actions. This participation need not in all cases be by physical presence. Common intention implies acting in concert. There is a prearranged plan which is proved either from conduct or from circumstances or from incriminating facts.
• The principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act is embodied in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The existence of Common intention is to be the basis of liability. That is why the prior concert and the prearranged plan is the foundation of common intention to establish liability and guilt.
• The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge.
• While the protection given by the criminal process to the Accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of Criminal Justice.

Judgement:

• Accused Krishnan and Ganesan are equally liable for Commission of Offence.
• Applicability of Section 34 depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As such no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the applicability or non- applicability of Section 34. For applicability of the Section it is not necessary that the acts of several persons charged with commission of an Offence jointly, must be the same or identically similar.
• The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision.
• The facts in the present case has great similarity with those in Charan Singh v. State of Punjab. It was held that attack at different places on different sides of the weapons of assault did not show absence of common intention. In the background as highlighted above, charge under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code stands established against both the Accused persons.
• Other plea relates to alibi claimed by Accused-Appellants Krishnan and Ganesan.
• In view of the legal principles inferred and the factual position analysed above, the only conclusion is that the appeals lack merit hence both the pleas are dismissed.

Conclusion:

• This Landmark Judgement dealt with a murder case of a lady who was involved in an illicit affair with the police inspector and hence the relatives of the wife of the inspector threatened and later on put her to death.
• The case was not less than a crime thriller show in which the accused raised Alibi and tred shifting the blame on the deceased’s brother.
• The Judgment cleared various issues pertaining to the proof and the degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of High Court and Trial Court.

Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider

Published On: February 13, 2022 at 11:47 IST