CRL A/223/2018 of SELVAKUMAR @ SELVAM Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS on 16 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 13.06.2017 made in S.C.No.2 of 2016, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal, Puducherry ("the Trial Court"), by which the appellant/A1 convicted for offences under Section 304(2) IPC., and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC., and sentenced under Section 304(2) IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. Further, sentenced him under Section 324 r/w Section 34 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The second accused (A2) was acquitted of all charges.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(i) The Inspector of Police, Thirunallar Police Station, Karaikal, laid a charge sheet against A1 and A2 for offences under Sections 342, 324, 302 and 109 read with Section 34 IPC, alleging that on 25.06.2013, between 12.15 hours and 13.30 hours, at the Toddy Shop at Athipadugai, Thirunallar, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, in the course of an altercation with the deceased Ramakrishnan, A2 wrongfully confined him in the thatched shed and A1 stabbed him on the back side of his left thigh with a knife, causing his death.

(ii) PW1 / Ashokumar working as a Cashier in the Toddy Shop No.6 at Athipadugai. The deceased Ramakrishnan working as a cashier in the arrack shop situated on the eastern side of that toddy shop. On 25.06.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., when the deceased went to the arrack shop, A1 standing at the entrance and used filthy language against him. Provoked by this, the deceased slapped A1 on his cheek. A1 told the deceased, "You slapped me. Wait and see what I will do within half an hour," and threatened him. PW2, PW3, PW5 and one Mathivanan present at that time.

(iii) Thereafter, the accused went to Shanmuga Stores and purchased two knives from PW8. At about 12.15 p.m., when PW1 and the deceased sitting on a bench in front of toddy shop and having tea, A1 and A2 came there. A1 told A2, "Here is Ramakrishnan. Let him not move." A1 then stabbed the deceased on his left thigh with a knife. When A1 attempted to stab the deceased again, PW1 intercepted and sustained a cut injury on his right palm. PW1 raised an alarm; PW2, PW3 and others rushed to the spot and the accused fled with their knives. The injured Ramakrishnan taken in an auto driven by PW7 to the General Hospital, Karaikal.

(iv) PW19, the Duty Doctor, examined the injured at 12.35 p.m., referred him to the Trauma Ward and sent an intimation (Ex.P10) to the police. PW13, Dr.Ruba, examined him at 12.40 p.m. Despite treatment, Ramakrishnan died at 1.30 p.m., and PW13 sent the death intimation (Ex.P8). PW14, Dr.Prithivirajan, examined PW1 and noted a cut injury on the right palm, which was simple in nature, Ex.P9 is the Wound Certificate.

(v) PW1 then went to the Thirunallar Police Station, gave complaint (Ex.P1). PW21, Sub-Inspector, registered the case (Ex.P12, printed FIR). PW22, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P2) and observation mahazar (Ex.P14), took photographs (Ex.P13) and recovered blood stained sand, sample sand and a polythene cover (MOs.1 to 3). He conducted the inquest (Ex.P16) and seized the wearing apparel of the deceased (MOs.4 to 8). PW12, Dr.Narasimhamoorthy, conducted the postmortem on 26.06.2013 at 10.40 a.m. (Ex.P7), noted a single stab injury measuring 4 x 1.5 x 24 cm on the upper one-third of the left thigh, directed obliquely upwards and medially through the femoral triangle and entering the abdominal cavity lateral to the bladder, with rupture of the femoral artery and vein. He opined that death was due to hypovolaemic shock as a result of stab injury.

(vi) On 26.06.2013 at about 11.15 hours, on information, PW22 along with the police party, PW7 and one Varadharajan went to Sethur, found A1 riding a TVS 50 Moped with A2 as pillion rider, intercepted and arrested. On a search, a receipt (Ex.P6) for the purchase of two knives from Shanmuga Stores found, and two stainless steel kitchen knives (MOs.9 and 10), one of them blood stained, found on the moped, which seized along with the moped

(MO11) under mahazar (Ex.P5). PW8, the salesman, and PW20, owner of Shanmuga Stores, spoke about the sale of two knives to the accused and bill hooks (Exs.P6 and P11) recovered. The blood samples and other articles sent to the CFSL, Hyderabad. On completion of the investigation, PW23 laid the charge sheet.

3. After compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Session and taken on file as S.C.No.2 of 2016. Charges under Sections 342, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC framed against A1 and A2. They pleaded not guilty.

4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW23, marked Exs.P1 to P17 and produced MOs.1 to 11. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances, the accused denied them as false. No defence witness examined and no defence exhibit marked.

5. The Trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence, held that PW1, who is the injured eyewitness and whose presence at the place of occurrence was natural, was a reliable witness, and that his evidence corroborated by PW2 and PW3, who rushed to the spot and saw A1 with the knife and the deceased in a pool of blood, PW7, Auto driver, who took the deceased to the hospital, medical evidence of PW12, PW13, PW14 and PW19, and the evidence of PW8 and PW20 regarding purchase of knives. The Trial Court held that the delay in lodging the complaint satisfactorily explained. It found that the single blow on the thigh, which is not a vital part, showed that the intention to cause the particular injury to femoral artery could not be attributed to A1, though the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; it therefore convicted A1 under Section 304(2) IPC., instead of Section 302 IPC. It further convicted A1 under Section 324 IPC for the injury caused to PW1. The charge under Section 342 IPC held not proved against A1 and A2 acquitted of all charges, since there was no evidence of meeting of minds or common intention and nothing was recovered from him.

6. Mr.S.Kasirajan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the judgment of the Trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. PW1 is the sole eyewitness and his evidence is full of contradictions. In Ex.P1, PW1 deposed that A2 confined the deceased, A1 stabbed him; in his chief examination he did not depose about confinement by A2 and later deposed that A2 confined him; in Ex.P1 he stated that both accused ran away with their knives, whereas in his evidence he deposed that PW2 and PW3 rushed to the spot and caught A1; in cross-examination he stated that he was alone when the deceased was stabbed.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that PW3 and PW4 rushed to the spot on hearing the shouting and not eyewitnesses. Mathivanan, said to be present along with PW2 in the morning, V.A.O. Tamilvelan, in whose presence the confession recorded, and Varadharajan, who accompanied PW7 at the time of arrest, not examined. There was an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.

The occurrence took place at 12.15 hours, whereas PW1 deposed that he lodged the complaint at 4 p.m., while FIR records receipt at 13.30 hours. Nothing stated in the FIR about the delay. The evidence of PW7 and PW22 is contradictory as to whether the cash bill for purchase of the knives recovered from the two wheeler or from the pocket of the appellant; PW8 is unbelievable in stating that he accepted only Rs.100/- against the price of Rs.120/- shown in Ex.P6; MOs.9 and 10 not shown to PW1; the CFSL report not marked; the weapon not shown to PW12, who deposed that lungi cut mark much smaller than the knife.

8. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that wound certificate describes the place of occurrence as near the arrack shop, whereas prosecution case is that it was at the toddy shop; PW1 deposed in cross-examination that he saw the accused at the police station, so the arrest is doubtful; the evidence of PW15 shows a previous day's quarrel, though the prosecution does not allege any incident on 24.06.2013; and the corrected version of Ex.P10 ought not to have been accepted. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

9. Per contra, Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence. PW1 is an injured eyewitness whose presence is natural and whose evidence is corroborated by PW2, PW3, PW7, the medical evidence and recovery

of the knives and the bill. The variations pointed out are minor and do not go to the root of the case. The delay, if any, has been explained, since PW1 himself injured, attending to the deceased, informing the owner of the toddy shop and the family of the deceased.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor, by relying on the Judgmnet of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 (6) Supreme 489 would contend that testimony of an injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable. Further, he relied on an yeter another decision of the Supreme Court in Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 165, wherein it has been held that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine its reliability when the material facts remain consistent and the evidence inspires confidence. The Court observed that medical evidence should ordinarily be considered to corroborate ocular evidence and that eyewitness testimony may be rejected on medical grounds only where there is a gross contradiction rendering it impossible to believe. Accordingly, courts must evaluate the evidence as a whole rather than focus on trivial discrepancies, and only material contradictions that create substantial doubt about the prosecution’s case may affect the credibility of the witnesses. Further, the learned counsel relied on decision of this Court in Sudhakar Vs. The State reported in 2025 CrLJ 841, wherein it has been held that “eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts. The Trial Court has in fact lenient in convicting the appellant only under Section 304(2) IPC., and the sentence imposed is not excessive. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

10. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record, including the records of the Trial Court.

11. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant stabbed the deceased and caused injury to PW1?

(ii) Whether the conviction under Section 304(2) IPC and Section 324 IPC and the sentences imposed call for any interference?

12. It is not dispute that Ramakrishnan died on 25.06.2013 at 1.30 p.m. in the General Hospital, Karaikal. PW19, PW13 and PW12 speak to the arrival at the hospital, the treatment and the death. PW9 and PW10, wife and the son of the deceased, identified the body. The postmortem certificate (Ex.P7) shows a single stab injury of 4 x 1.5 x 24 cm on the left thigh, with rupture of the femoral artery and vein, and the cause of death was hypovolaemic shock as a result of the stab injury. The defence has not seriously disputed the nature of death and the Trial Court has rightly held that the death was caused by the stab injury.

13. The prosecution case rests primarily on PW1. He is the cashier of the toddy shop, where the occurrence took place, and the deceased was the cashier of the adjacent arrack shop. His presence at the toddy shop at the time of the occurrence is therefore natural and cannot be doubted. More importantly, PW1 himself sustained a cut injury of about 2 cm on his right palm in the same occurrence when he intercepted the second attempt to stab the deceased. The injury is proved by the evidence of PW14 and the Wound Certificate (Ex.P9), PW1 deposed that he assaulted by one person. The presence of an injury on the witness corroborates his presence at the scene and his version that he was a victim of the same assault. The evidence of an injured witness stands on a higher footing and carries a built-in guarantee of his presence, as he is unlikely to spare the real assailant and implicate an innocent person. It is a well settled principle that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be reliable and cogent, as the law, under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, requires weighing of the evidence and not counting of the witnesses. The Trial Court has correctly applied this principle.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant laid great stress on the contradictions in the evidence of PW1. I have carefully gone through them. The core of PW1's version remained consistent in the complaint (Ex.P1), in his statement and in his deposition, both in chief and in cross-examination. At about 12.15 p.m., while he and deceased sitting in the thatched shed of the toddy shop, A1 came with a knife, stabbed the deceased on his left thigh, when A1 again attempted to stab, he intercepted and sustained a cut injury on his right palm and he raised an alarm. The variations relate to the role of A2, namely whether A2 confined the deceased, and to peripheral details such as whether PW2 and PW3 caught A1 or both accused ran away. These variations pertain to the part attributed to A2, and the Trial Court has already extended the benefit of these very contradictions to A2 by acquitting him and by holding that the charge under Section 342 IPC not proved even against A1. They do not touch upon the act attributed to A1, namely stabbing of the deceased, causing of injury to PW1, on which PW1 consistent and which is amply corroborated by other evidence. Minor discrepancies, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of an otherwise trustworthy witness, particularly when the witness is deposing before the Court about an incident which took place three years earlier. The Trial Court has rightly held that the minor contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution case.

15. The contention that PW2, PW3 and PW4 are not eyewitnesses, a their evidence ought not to have been relied on is of no avail. The Trial Court itself proceeded on the footing that PW1 is the solitary eyewitness to the stabbing. But PW2 and PW3 are cashiers of the adjacent arrack shop and it is quite natural that on hearing PW1's shouting, they rushed to the toddy shop and saw A1 with knife and the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Their evidence, being of persons who reached the spot immediately after occurrence, corroborates PW1 on the vital aspects of the time, place and manner of the occurrence and the presence of A1 with the weapon. It is part of the same transaction and is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. PW7, auto driver, deposed that at about 12.15 hours he saw a gathering of people near Athipadugai, found the deceased in a pool of blood with a stab injury, took him in his auto to the General Hospital. This is corroborated by PW1, PW3, PW19 and PW13, who speak about the arrival of the injured at the hospital at 12.35 and 12.40 hours. The hospital records thus fix the time of the occurrence and lend assurance to the prosecution version.

16. The prosecution has established the motive. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 deposed about the incident at 9.00 a.m. on 25.06.2013, when deceased slapped A1 on his cheek after A1 used filthy language, and A1 threatened him. This provides motive for A1 to attack the deceased at about 12.15 p.m. on the same day. The submission that presence of A2 not mentioned in Ex.P1 in respect of morning incident concerns only A2, who stands acquitted, and no bearing on the case against A1. The non-examination of Mathivanan is of no consequence, since the incident spoken to by four other witnesses, and it is well settled that the prosecution is not bound to examine every person who present. What matters is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence, and no adverse inference arises from the non-examination of a witness, when the material witnesses are examined and the evidence is otherwise reliable and cogent.

17. The occurrence took place at 12.15 hours. The injured taken to the hospital immediately, and PW1, who himself injured, who had to attend to the injured, inform the owner of the toddy shop and wife of the deceased, and also secure treatment for his own injury at the General Hospital, Karaikal at about 12.35 hours, as spoken to by PW14. Only thereafter did he go to the Thirunallar Police Station, about three kilometres away, and lodge Ex.P1, which registered as FIR on the same day. The reason for the interval of about three hours is thus apparent on record. The delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal in every case; what the Court to see is whether the delay satisfactorily explained and whether it has given an opportunity for embellishment or concoction. In the present case, the explanation is natural and probable. The prosecution case has not been shown to have been improved upon in the interval; the intimation by the Doctors (Exs.P8 and P10) reached the police even earlier. The variation between the evidence of PW1 that he gave the complaint at about 4 p.m. and the time recorded in the FIR is only a minor variation, as rightly observed by the Trial Court. The absence of an express mention of the reason for delay in the FIR does not detract from the explanation given in evidence, which stands unshaken.

18. The appellant and A2 were intercepted by PW22, PW7 and the police party on 26.06.2013 at Sethur while travelling on TVS 50 Moped (MO11). PW7 and PW22 speak to the recovery of MOs.9 and 10 from the Moped, and one of them was blood stained. PW8, salesman, and PW20, owner of Shanmuga Stores, speak to sale of two knives to the accused and the bill (Ex.P6) and the bill hook (Ex.P11), maintained in the usual course of business, support their evidence. Both these witnesses knew the accused even before the occurrence and identified them in Court. Where the witnesses already know the accused, the absence of a test identification parade is immaterial, since an identification parade is only a part of investigation and is not substantive evidence. Moreover, PW17, who is deaf and dumb and whose evidence translated by PW8, deposed to stabbing by A1 with a knife.

19. The discrepancy pointed out by the appellant between PW7 and PW22 as to whether the knife receipt was found on two wheeler or in the pocket of A1 is a minor contradiction regarding a collateral detail, arising from the evidence of witnesses deposing nearly three years after the event. It does not affect the substance of the recovery of two knives from the Moped in the presence of PW7, nor the proof of purchase of the knives from Shanmuga Stores, which stands independently proved through PW8 and PW20. Equally, the argument that PW8 would not have accepted only Rs.100/- against the price of

Rs.120/- is a matter of commercial dealing in a small transaction, and does not discredit the sale. The non-examination of Varadharajan, who accompanied PW7 and the police party, is not material since PW7 and PW22, who are competent witnesses, spoken about arrest and the recovery. The non-examination of the Village Administrative Officer, Tamilvelan, is also of no consequence, as the confessional statement said to have been recorded in his presence has not been relied on by the Trial Court. The conviction does not rest on any confession to the police, which is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act except to the extent permitted by Section 27. Consequently, the reference of PW15's evidence to a quarrel on the previous day does not affect the prosecution case, which stands independently proved by the evidence of PW1 and others.

20. The fact that MOs.9 and 10 not shown to PW1 during his evidence is also not of significance, as they identified by PW7, PW8 and PW20, and the case does not rest on the identification of the weapon by PW1; PW1 has consistently spoken that A1 stabbed the deceased with a knife.

21. The medical evidence is consistent with the ocular version. PW12 deposed that stab injury on the left thigh could have been caused by a knife of this kind. The contention that the cut mark on the lungi much smaller than knife and that the weapon not shown to PW12 does not render the prosecution case doubtful. PW12 deposed that the length of the knife and the injury may not necessarily be the same, and a clothing cut mark may not correspond in measurement to the weapon. In the absence of any suggestion that injury could not have been caused by a knife of this nature, this is not a circumstance that creates reasonable doubt. The 24 cm depth of the wound, which directed upwards and medially through the femoral triangle, is consistent with the version of PW1 that the stab was a forceful blow. The alleged correction in Ex.P10 or the absence of multiple injuries on the body of the deceased does not help the appellant, since the prosecution case itself is that only one stab injury was inflicted on the deceased, which is borne out by the postmortem certificate. The mention in the wound certificate that occurrence took place near the arrack shop, instead of the toddy shop, is only a loose description, as the arrack shop and the toddy shop are adjacent to each other and the thatched shed of the toddy shop, where occurrence took place, is situated close by. The statement of PW1 in cross-examination that he saw the accused at the police station when he went there does not create doubt on the arrest, which is spoken to by PW7 and PW22 and effected on 26.06.2013, after the occurrence.

22. It is true that knife and the dress materials sent to the CFSL, Hyderabad, and a report received, but not marked by the prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court. The failure of the prosecution to prove the report is an omission, but it does not cause any serious prejudice to the case when ocular testimony of the injured witness is reliable and is corroborated by the evidence of

PW2, PW3 and PW7, the medical evidence and the recovery of the knife purchased by the accused. A lapse in the investigation or in the proof of one piece of scientific evidence cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the otherwise credible direct evidence. The Trial Court alive to this and rightly did not rest the conviction on that report.

23. On an overall appreciation, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.06.2013 at about 12.15 hours, A1 stabbed the deceased Ramakrishnan on his left thigh with a knife, resulting in rupture of the femoral artery and vein, his death by hypovolaemic shock, when he made a second attempt to stab the deceased, PW1 intercepted and was injured on his right palm. The finding of the Trial Court on Point No.(i) is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity.

24. The Trial Court held that accused struck a single blow on the left thigh, which is not a vital part of the body, and that though the injury, by cutting femoral artery, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it could not be said that A1 intended to inflict that particular injury. Giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 304(2) IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, committed with the knowledge that act was likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. There is no appeal or revision by the State challenging this finding. In the light of the nature of the weapon, knife about 30 cm in length, depth of the wound (24 cm), the sequence of events, namely purchase of the knives after the morning altercation and the attack at 12.15 hours, there can be no doubt at all that appellant acted with the knowledge that injury likely to cause death. The conviction under Section 304(2) IPC is therefore not only sustainable but is one that has been tempered with leniency in favour of the appellant.

25. The Trial Court found that PW1 sustained a simple cut injury on his right palm, when he intercepted the second attempt of A1 to stab the deceased, which was caused by the knife in the hands of A1. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW14 and Ex.P9. The offence under Section 324 IPC is thus made out. It is, however, seen that the Trial Court, though it has found that A1 is guilty under Section 324 IPC., has acquitted A2 of all the charges, mentioned the conviction in the operative portion as one under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Since A2 has been acquitted and no other person is found to have shared the common intention, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, to be read as one under Section 324 IPC simpliciter. This clarification does not affect the finding of guilt or quantum of sentence, as the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out through direct act of A1.

26. The offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years, or with fine, or with both, and the offence under Section 324 IPC with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine, or with both. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of five years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the former and six months of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for the latter. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, namely the loss of human life over a trivial altercation by use of a weapon purchased for the purpose, the sentence imposed is well within the limits and is quite moderate. The Trial Court has considered the plea of the appellant for mercy, including his submission regarding his two minor children. There are no mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence. The submission that the sentence is excessive is, therefore, rejected.

27. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the grounds raised in this appeal. The judgment of the Trial Court is based on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and no ground is made out to interfere with the same.

28. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment dated 13.06.2017 made in S.C.No.2 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal, Puducherry, convicting and sentencing the appellant / A1 is confirmed, The sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed, and the direction to set off the period of detention already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C., stand confirmed.

29. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal, shall take steps to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence, after giving credit for the period already undergone.

16.10.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes / No mpk

1. The Sessions Judge, Karaikal, Puducherry,

2. Inspector of Police, Thirunallar Police Station, Karaikal, Pondicherry.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Govt. of Puducherry.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. mpk Pre-Delivery Judgment made in CRL.A.No.223 of 2018 16.10.2026