# STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 596
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-by-inspector-of-police-tamilnadu-v-n-rajamanickam-and-ors-23565
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal trial - Conviction by trial Court - Acquittal by
c
High Court on the grounds that there was delay in lodging FIR,
that the testimony of witness was not credible and serious iniuries on accused were not explained- Interference with - Held:
Singularly, these factors may not have adverse effect on prosecution version - But when combined effect of these factors
are considered, case not made out for interference.
D
Prosecution case was that charge-sheet was filed
against 16 persons. Trial Court convicted 6 persons. The
convicted accused filed appeal while informant filed revision petition questioning the acquittal of rest of accused
E persons. High Court found that the evidence of PW-1
lacked credibility and allowed the appeal filed by the con-
----
victed accused persons and dismissed the revision petition filed by the informant.
In appeals to this Court, appellant-State contended
F that the factors which weighed with the High Court to diy -
rect acquittal had no legal basis.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected
G documents in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the
credibility of the prosecution version. But that is not the
only factor which weighed with the High Court. Added to
that, the High Court noted the artificiality of the evidence
i
-
of PW-1 and the non-explanation of injuries on the acH
596
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N.
597
RAJAMANICKAM & ORS.
cused pe.rsons which were very serious in nature. The A
combined effect of these factors certainly deserved consideration and the High Court rightly emphasized on them
to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations. Singularly, the factors may not have
adverse effect on the prosecution version. But when a
B
combined effect of the factors noted by .the High Court
are taken into consideration, .the inevitable conclusion is
that these are cases where no interference is called for.
[Para 7] [598 F-H, 599-A]

## Text

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 596
,.,...
"":'
A
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU
v.
N. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002)
B
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
Criminal trial - Conviction by trial Court - Acquittal by
c
High Court on the grounds that there was delay in lodging FIR,
that the testimony of witness was not credible and serious iniuries on accused were not explained- Interference with - Held:
Singularly, these factors may not have adverse effect on prosecution version - But when combined effect of these factors
are considered, case not made out for interference.
D
Prosecution case was that charge-sheet was filed
against 16 persons. Trial Court convicted 6 persons. The
convicted accused filed appeal while informant filed revision petition questioning the acquittal of rest of accused
E persons. High Court found that the evidence of PW-1
lacked credibility and allowed the appeal filed by the con-
----
victed accused persons and dismissed the revision petition filed by the informant.
In appeals to this Court, appellant-State contended
F that the factors which weighed with the High Court to diy -
rect acquittal had no legal basis.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected
G documents in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the
credibility of the prosecution version. But that is not the
only factor which weighed with the High Court. Added to
that, the High Court noted the artificiality of the evidence
i
-
of PW-1 and the non-explanation of injuries on the acH
596
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N.
597
RAJAMANICKAM & ORS.
cused pe.rsons which were very serious in nature. The A
combined effect of these factors certainly deserved consideration and the High Court rightly emphasized on them
to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations. Singularly, the factors may not have
adverse effect on the prosecution version. But when a
B
combined effect of the factors noted by .the High Court
are taken into consideration, .the inevitable conclusion is
that these are cases where no interference is called for.
[Para 7] [598 F-H, 599-A]
CRIMINALaPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c
No. 668 of 2002
. From ·the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2001 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 235 of 1994
r
S. Thananjayan, V.J. Francis, V. Balu, A. Radhakrishnan D
and Anupam Mishra for the Appellant.
R. Shunmugashunaram, P. Vajravel, M. Babu, S. Prabu
Ramasubramanian, Rakesh K. Sharma and Dr. R. Prakash for
the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
the parties.
2. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1636 of 2002.
F
3. Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002 has been filed by the
State questioning correctness of the judgment of a learned
·Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The appeal filed.by the
respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was allowed while the criminal revision petition filed by PW-1, the G
brother of the deceased was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Originally, 16 persons were named in the charge-sheet.
Out of them, one. had died and one was absconding. The rest
14 persons faced trial. The Trial Court convicted 6 out of them
who had faced trial. Those six persons preferred the criminal H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008) 13 S.C.R.
A appeal while the informant filed the revision petition questioning the acquittal of rest of the accused persons. The High Court
found that there Vv'.ere certain vital factors which rendered the
prosecution version improbable. Some of the factors noted are
the delayed despatch and receipt of the FIR and connected
s documents in the court of Magistrate. The non-explanation of
injuries on some of the accused persons was held to be of consequence. It was held that there was a clash amongst the members of complainant party and the accused persons over political factors. The High Court noted that there was no explanation
c offered for the delayed receipt of the FIR and connected documents, Exhs. P-1 and P-22. Added to that, the High Court found
that the evidence of PW-1 lacked credibility and cogency. With
these observations, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by
the convicted accused persons and dismissed the revision
0 petition filed by the informant.
E
F
4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant-State and the informant submitted that the factors which
weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal have no legal
basis.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the judgment of the High Court.
6. It is to be noted that A-8, who was one of the accusedrespondents had died in the meantime.
7. Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected documents in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the credibility of
the prosecution version. But that is not the only factor which
weighed with the High Court. Added to that, the High Court has
noted the artificiality of the evidence of PW-1 and the non-exG planation of injuries on the accused persons which were very
serious in nature. The combined effect of these factors certainly
deserved consideration and, according to us, the High Court
has rightly emphasized on them to hold that the prosecution has
not been able to establish the accusations. Singularly, the facH tors may not have adverse effect on the prosecution version.
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v. N.
599
RAJAMANICKAM & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
_.
But when a combined effect of the 'factors noted by the High A
Court are taken into consideration, the inevitable conclusion is
that these are cases where no interference is called for. The
appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
J.
D.G.
Appeals dismissed.
B
- *