2019 INSC 0420
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1990 OF 2012
SADAYAPPAN @ GANESAN             …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE, REPRESENTED BY         …RESPONDENT
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
J U D G M E N T
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   Judgment   dated
13 th
  December,   2011   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2011
whereby  the   Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissed
the   appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant   herein   and   upheld
his conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   read   with
Section 34, IPC.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that Selvam @ Thangaraj
(deceased),   Karuppusamy   (A1)   and   Sadayappan   @
Ganesan   (A2/appellant   herein)   were   neighbouring
1

agricultural land owners in the village of Kandavayal who
used   to   go   together   for   hunting   of   rabbits   in   the   nearby
forest   area.   Around   15   years   prior   to   the   incident,   the
deceased   Thangaraj   had   negotiated   to   buy   some
agricultural   land   from   A1   and   paid   him   Rs.   30,000/­
towards   the   sale   value   and   took   possession   of   the   said
land.   However,   despite   repeated   requests,   A1   had   never
come forward for registering the sale deed in favour of the
deceased.   Owing   to   this,   A1   and   the   deceased   developed
animosity towards each other. A2—appellant herein is the
adjacent landowner who always supported A1 in avoiding
registration   of   the   sale   deed.   Despite   animosity   against
the   deceased,   A1   and   A2   kept   on   going   to   the   forest   for
hunting   along   with   him.   On   May   27,   2008   at   about   11
p.m., both A1 and A2 went to the house of deceased and
insisted   that   he   accompany   them   to   the   fields/forest.
Eventually,   the   deceased   went   with   them   hesitatingly.
When   the   deceased   did   not   return   home   till   4   am   in   the
morning, his wife—Rajammal (PW1) sent one Palanisamy
(PW2—brother of the deceased) and Govindarajan (PW3—
nephew of the deceased) to search for her  husband. PWs
2

2 and 3, while searching for the deceased, found his dead
body   near   the   fields   with   bleeding   injuries.   They
immediately   rushed   to   PW1   and   informed   her   of   the
same. 
3. On   a   complaint   given   by   PW1,   the   Sub­Inspector   of
Police   (PW14)   at   Sirumugai   Police   Station   registered   the
crime   under   Section   302,   IPC   and   Section   25   (1B)(a)   of
the   Indian   Arms   Act   against   the   accused.   The   Assistant
Commissioner   of   Police   (PW15—Pandian)   took   up   the
investigation   and   after   completing   the   formalities   of
holding   inquest   and   preparing   inquest   report   (Ext.   P21),
sent   the   body   of   the   deceased   for   post­mortem.   On
August 29, 2008 the accused appeared before the Village
Administrative Officer (VAO) and confessed to committing
the   crime.   When   the   VAO   produced   the   accused   with
their confessional statements, the I.O. arrested them and
at   their   instance   recovered   material   objects   including
Single Barrel Muzzle Loading Gun (MO1), torch light with
battery,   blood   stained   and   normal   soil,   torn   clothes,
lungi,   towel   etc.   and   sent   them   for   chemical   analysis.
Subsequently, the  learned  Judicial  Magistrate  committed
3

the   case   to   the   Principal   District   and   Sessions   Judge,
Coimbatore   who   framed   charges   against   the   accused­
appellant   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34,   IPC.
The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. After   an   elaborate   trial,   the   Trial   Judge   opined   that
the   circumstantial   evidence   correlates   with   the   accused
and clearly proves that owing to prior enmity, A1 and A2,
in   furtherance  of   their   common   intention,   committed  the
murder   of   the   deceased   with   a   gun   shot   from   the
unauthorized gun owned by accused­appellant.  The Trial
Court   thereby   found   both   the   accused   guilty   and
accordingly   convicted  the   appellant   herein  under  Section
302   read   with   Section   34,   IPC   and   sentenced   him   to   life
imprisonment   and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.   10,000   vide
order   dated   18.05.2011.   Both   the   accused   preferred   an
appeal   before   the   High   Court   which   was   dismissed   vide
order   dated   December   13,   2011.   Aggrieved   thereby,   both
the accused preferred separate appeals before this Court.
It   is   pertinent   to   state   that   the   appeal   of   the   A1   stood
abated owing to his death during its pendency. Thus, we
are now concerned only with the appeal preferred by A2.
4

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
contended that the courts below have incorrectly relied on
the   testimonies   of   interested   witnesses   who   are   relatives
of   the   deceased.   He   submitted   that   the   chain   of
circumstances   connecting   the   appellant   to   the   crime   is
incomplete.   He   further   submitted   that   the   courts   below
erred in holding that the appellant had motive to commit
the   alleged   crime   and   shared   a   common   intention   with
A1,   inasmuch   as   the   land   dispute   between   A1   and   the
victim   had   already   been   settled   amicably   in   the
panchayat. He argued that A1, A2 and the victim were on
friendly terms thereafter which is reinforced from the fact
that they used to go to the forest for hunting together. 
6. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State,   however,
supported the judgment of the High Court and submitted
that there was no occasion for this Court to interfere with
it.
7. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsels   for   the   parties
and meticulously perused the material on record. 
8. Admittedly,   the   deceased,   A1   and   A2   (appellant
herein)   were   neighbouring   agricultural   landowners   and
5

used   to   go   for   hunting   together.   Further,   there   is   no
denial of the fact that around 15 years prior to the date of
incident,   the   deceased   and   A1   had   entered   into   a   deal
through   which   land   was   sold   to   the   deceased,   but   the
same   was   never   registered.   Additionally,   record   shows
that   A2—the   appellant   herein,   whose   land   was   adjacent
to   that   of   A1,   always   supported   A1   in   the   matter   of
delaying the registration of land in favour of the deceased.
This is the factual matrix of enmity between the accused
and the deceased which serves as motive for the offence.
Despite this, the deceased kept on going to the forest for
hunting   with   the   accused   persons.   These   facts   are
abundantly   clear   from   the   testimonies   of   PWs   1,   2,   3,   4
and 6. 
9. Further,   PW1   –   wife   of   the   deceased   (complainant),
who   is   the   witness   to   the   last   seen,   supported   the
prosecution   version   and   deposed   that   two   days   prior   to
the incident she had pressed A1 to register the land, but
he   kept   quiet   and   went   away.   She   further   stated   that
owing   to   this   pre­existing   enmity,   the   accused   persons
were   motivated   to   eliminate   her   husband.   Thus,   on   the
6

fateful   night,   the   accused   had   come,   armed,   to   take   the
deceased   along   with   them   to   the   forest,   a   request   which
was acceded to by the deceased hesitatingly. 
10. With respect to the deposition of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6
which   firmly   establish   the   prosecution   version,   the
learned counsel for the appellant contended that they are
inter­related and interested witnesses, thus, making their
evidence unreliable. 
11. Criminal law jurisprudence makes a clear distinction
between   a   related   and   interested   witness.   A   witness
cannot   be   said   to   be   an   “ interested ”   witness   merely   by
virtue  of   being   a  relative  of   the  victim.    The  witness   may
be   called   “ interested ”   only   when   he   or   she   derives   some
benefit   from   the   result   of   a   litigation   in   the   decree   in   a
civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.   [ See :
Sudhakar  v.  State , (2018) 5 SCC 435 ].
12. In   the   case   at   hand,   witnesses   maybe   related   but
they   cannot   be   labelled   as   interested   witnesses.   A
scrutiny of their testimonies which has stood the rigour of
cross­examination corroborates the prosecution story. 
13. PW2—brother   of   the   deceased   and   PW3—nephew   of
7

the   deceased,   clearly   deposed   that   when   they   came   to
know   from   PW1   that   the   deceased   did   not   turn   up   after
leaving   home   at   11   pm   on   the   previous   night,   they   went
in search of him and found his dead body in ‘ Vaalaithope ’.
Similarly, PW4 – another nephew of the deceased has also
deposed   that   upon   coming   to   know   from   his   brother—
PW3   about   the   death   of   his   uncle,   he   along   with   his
mother   went   to   ‘Vaalaithope’   where   they   found   the   dead
body   of   the   deceased.   PW6—another   nephew   of   the
deceased   also   deposed   in   his   statement   that   when   he
went   to   Sirumugai   Police   Station   he   saw   the   accused
persons   there   and   witnessed   their   confessional
statements recorded by the police. He also stated that he
accompanied   the   police   with   the   accused   to   the   place   of
occurrence   where   normal   and   blood   stained   mud   was
collected,   and   that   he   signed   the   observation   Mahazar
(Ex.P7).  
14. Going   by   the   corroborative   statements   of   these
witnesses, it is discernible that though they are related to
each   other   and   to   the   deceased   as   well,   their   evidence
cannot   be   discarded   by   simply   labelling   them   as
8

“ interested ”   witnesses.   After   thoroughly   scrutinizing   their
evidence, we do not find any  direct or  indirect interest of
these   witnesses   to   get   the   accused   punished   by   falsely
implicating him so as to meet out any vested interest. We
are, therefore, of the considered view that the evidences of
PWs   1,   2,   3,   4   and   6   are   quite   reliable   and   we   see   no
reason to disbelieve them.
15. With   respect   to   forensic   evidence,   Dr.   T.   Jeya   Singh
(PW12),   who   conducted   post   mortem   on   the   body   of   the
deceased,   found   prominent   injures   on   the   body   of   the
deceased and opined that the deceased died due to shock
and   haemorrhage   from   multiple   injuries   (perforating   and
penetrating)   which   were   possible   due   to   piercing   of
pellets.   The   post   mortem   report   and   chemical   analysis
report   confirms   the   gun   shot   and   proves   that   the   gun
powder   discovered   on   the   body   and   clothes   of   the
deceased   was   the   residue   of   the   gun   (MO1).   The
ownership   of   this   gun   (MO1),   which   was   discovered   on
the   basis   of   his   extra­judicial   confession,   has   not   been
disputed   by   the   appellant   in   his   Section   313   Cr.P.C.
statement. 
9

16. The   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant
agitated   the   genuineness   and   admissibility   of   the   extra­
judicial   confession   of   the   accused   on   the   basis   of   which
recovery of gun (MO1) was made. He questioned the same
on   the   basis   of   absence   of   the   examination   of   the   VAO
who allegedly recorded the same. It is to be noted that the
record indicates that the VAO could not be examined due
to   his   death   before   the   commencement   of   the   trial.
However, it  is  clear   that  the  said  confessional  statement,
was sent by the VAO to the Inspector of Police along with
a   covering   letter   (Ext.   P14).   Moreover,   the   Village
Assistant—PW11,   even   though   turned   hostile,   had
specifically deposed that the said extra judicial confession
was recorded by the VAO.
17. Though   the   prosecution   case   is   premised   on
circumstantial   evidence   in   the   absence   of   any   eye­
witness,   the   depositions   of   prosecution   witnesses   which
have   stood   the   rigour   of   cross­examination   clearly
support   the   prosecution   version   and   establishes   enmity
between   the   accused   and   the   deceased.   This   fact
supported   by   PW1’s   last   seen   evidence,   her   prompt
10

complaint   to   the   police   and   the   forensic   evidence   which
correlates   the   recovered   weapon   to   the   physical   injuries
on  the  body   of   the   deceased  proves   the  prosecution   case
beyond   any   reasonable   doubt   independent   of   the   extra­
judicial confession.
18. Thus,   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   upholding   the
conviction   of   the   appellant   and   did   not   commit   any
illegality in passing the impugned judgment which merits
interference.   Therefore,   the   appeal   being   devoid   of   merit
stands dismissed.
……………………………….……..J.
                        ( N. V. RAMANA )
……………………………………...J.
 ( MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR )
N EW  D ELHI ;
A PRIL  26, 2019.
11