- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sivanmoorthy v. State
Factual and Procedural Background
On 28-10-2001 at about 8:00 p.m., Accused A-1 to A-8 (armed with sickles) and Accused A-9 to A-15 (armed with sticks) went to the house of Seeniappa Nadar. After being told that his son, PW 13 Mariappan, was absent, A-13 instigated the group to attack. The deceased suffered nine incised wounds and died on the spot. The motive was longstanding animosity between PW 13 and A-13 concerning rival factions within the Nadar community committee.
Initial investigation by PW 25 resulted in a charge-sheet against only six persons. Dissatisfied, the complainant obtained an order from the Madras High Court on 11-12-2001 directing the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID (PW 27) to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. PW 27 recorded additional statements (including some under Section 164 CrPC) and filed a fresh charge-sheet against all 15 named accused.
The Sessions Judge (16-06-2006) convicted all surviving accused. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the convictions of A-1 to A-6 and A-8 and acquitted the rest. Two separate appeals were filed before the Supreme Court: (i) by the convicted accused (Cr.A. 584/2008) and (ii) by PW 1, daughter of the deceased, challenging the acquittals (Cr.A. 767-68/2008). The Supreme Court heard both matters together.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the investigation conducted by PW 27 constituted permissible “further investigation” under Section 173(8) CrPC or an impermissible “re-investigation,” rendering the supplementary charge-sheet invalid.
- Whether, in light of allegedly conflicting investigations and absence of independent village witnesses, the convictions of A-1 to A-6 and A-8 could be sustained.
- Whether the acquitted accused (A-9 to A-15, except A-8) were nevertheless liable under Section 149 IPC on the basis of their presence and common object.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants – Convicted Accused (Criminal Appeal No. 584/2008)
- PW 27’s exercise amounted to a re-investigation, not “further investigation”; therefore evidence collected by him should be excluded.
- The two investigations (by PW 25 and PW 27) were mutually inconsistent, warranting rejection of both.
- With 15–16 accused and no neutral eyewitnesses, individual identification was unreliable; all accused deserved acquittal.
State of Tamil Nadu
- The High Court ordered further investigation; PW 27 only supplemented the earlier investigation by re-recording and adding statements, which is permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC.
- Statements of PW 1 (daughter) and PW 2 (grandson) are natural and trustworthy; medical evidence corroborates them.
- The High Court already sifted reliable from unreliable evidence, granting benefit of doubt to some accused; interference is unwarranted.
Complainant-Appellant (Criminal Appeals Nos. 767-68/2008)
- Because Section 149 IPC was applied, mere presence with the unlawful assembly sufficed to convict the acquitted accused.
- The High Court erred in granting them benefit of doubt.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223 | Differentiates between permissible “further investigation” and prohibited “fresh investigation/re-investigation.” | Court held that PW 27’s work fell within “further investigation,” so the precedent did not assist the appellants. |
| Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, (2008) 5 SCC 413 | Reiterates that courts may order further investigation but not re-investigation without justification. | Relied on to affirm that High Court’s direction and PW 27’s compliance were legally sound. |
| Mithabhai Pashabh Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332 | Explains scope of supplemental investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. | Cited by appellants; Supreme Court distinguished facts and upheld validity of supplemental investigation here. |
| Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 | Affirms power to order further investigation while stressing limits on re-investigation. | Used to reinforce conclusion that present case involved further, not fresh, investigation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Nature of Investigation. Reviewing the record and submissions, the Court observed that PW 27 merely supplemented the original probe by re-recording earlier witnesses and adding new statements, then filed an additional charge-sheet. Both the trial court and High Court previously rejected the contention that this was re-investigation; the Supreme Court concurred.
2. Assessment of Evidence. The Court re-examined testimony of the principal eyewitnesses (PW 1 and PW 2) alongside medical evidence from PW 17. Nine incised wounds matched the narrative of attack with sickles. Their presence at the scene was “natural,” and nothing in cross-examination undermined credibility.
3. High Court’s Selective Acquittals. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had already separated “grain from chaff,” acquitting those allegedly armed only with sticks because no blunt weapon injuries were found. That approach was neither “palpably wrong” nor “perverse.”
4. Section 149 IPC. While acknowledging the complainant’s reliance on collective liability, the Court held that interference with concurrent findings of fact upholding selective acquittals was unwarranted.
5. Scope of Appellate Review. The Supreme Court emphasised its reluctance to overturn concurrent factual determinations absent glaring errors, which were not present here.
Holding and Implications
All appeals are dismissed.
The convictions of A-1 to A-6 and A-8 as sustained by the High Court remain in force; the acquittals of the remaining accused stand affirmed. The judgment confirms that a court-directed supplemental investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is valid when it augments rather than supplants the original investigation. No new legal precedent is set, but the decision reinforces the distinction between “further investigation” and “re-investigation” and affirms appellate restraint in re-evaluating concurrent factual findings.
Order
1. The facts leading to these appeals are as under: on 28-10-2001 at 8.00 p.m Accused A-1 to A-8 armed with sickles (aruvals) and Accused 9 to 15 armed with sticks went to the house of the deceased, Seeniappa Nadar and inquired about PW 13, Mariappan, his son. The deceased informed the accused that Mariappan was not present in the house. Annoyed at this answer A-13, Ayyanar Nadar instigated the other accused and all of them attacked the deceased with their weapons killing him on the spot.
2. As per the prosecution story the motive for the incident was the serious animosity between Mariappan Nadar, PW 13 on the one hand, and A-13 Ayyanar Nadar, the accused on the other with regard to the affairs of the Nadar community inasmuch that they represented two different groups in the committee run by the community. It also appears from the record that even prior to this incident, several incidents had taken place between the parties with complaints inter se, not only in court but even in the police station.
3. The incident in question was witnessed by Sornammal, the wife of the deceased; her daughter, P. Chellam (PW 1) who was living in a house about 100 yards away and Muthu (PW 2), the grandson of the deceased. Sornammal then rushed to the police station and lodged the report within a short time. The investigating officer (PW 25) also reached the place of incident, made the necessary inquiries and sent the dead body to the hospital for the post-mortem examination.
4. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Ramesh (PW 17) revealed the presence of nine incised wounds on the dead body. After investigation PW 25 filed the charge-sheet against A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-11 and one Paneerselvam was subsequently charge-sheeted as well.
5. As the complainant was not satisfied with the investigation, she moved the Madras High Court for further investigation in the matter and the High Court by its order dated 11-12-2001, directed that the Superintendent of Police, CB Cid (PW 27) to examine the proceedings himself and in case he found that the investigation made by PW 25 was faulty, to further investigate the matter as postulated by Section 173(8) CrPC. It appears that further investigation was indeed made by PW 27 whereafter he filed a charge-sheet against all the 15 named persons leaving out Paneerselvam, the sixteenth accused. The matter was thereafter brought to trial before the Sessions Judge who by his judgment and order dated 16-6-2006, held all the accused (save A-7 who had died) guilty as follows:
Appellants Convictions under Sections Sentence awarded A-1 to A-6 and A-8 148, 341 and 302 IPC 1. One year rigorous imprisonment of each of the accused for the offence under Section 148 IPC. 2. One month simple imprisonment for each of them for the offence under Section 341 IPC. 3. Life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC for each of the accused. A-9 to A-15 147, 341 and 302 read with 149 IPC 1. Six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC for each of the accused. 2. One month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC. 3. Life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for each of the accused. A-13 323 IPC Six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
6. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the High Court. The High Court maintained the conviction of A-1 to A-6 and A-8 and acquitted the other accused.
7. Two appeals have been filed against the order of the High Court, one by the convicted accused in Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2008 and the second, Criminal Appeals Nos. 767-68 of 2008 by PW 1, the daughter of the complainant seeking a reversal of the High Court's judgment insofar as some of the accused had been acquitted and as the complainant had died before the evidence could be recorded in the trial court. Leave has been granted in both these matters and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties today in extenso.
8. Mr N. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2008 has raised several issues during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that Section 173(8) CrPC and the order of the High Court referred to above visualised “further investigation” in the matter and not re-investigation but it appeared from the record that PW 27 had in fact re-investigated the matter and that in this eventually the evidence collected by him could not be looked into for the purpose of recording a conviction against the appellants.
9. The counsel has also submitted that even assuming that the further investigation was in order but in the background that the investigation made by PW 25 was at complete variance with that made by PW 27, no credence could be attached to the investigations whatsoever and that it was thus open to the appellants to contend that the evidence collected by both the police officers was liable to be disbelieved.
10. The counsel has further pointed out that in the background of the fact that there were as many as 15 or 16 accused there was no way to identify and to adjudicate upon the culpability of one set of accused from the other and as such all the appellants were entitled to acquittal. He has also pointed out that no independent witness had been examined though many were available in the village in which the incident happened and this too cast a doubt on the prosecution story.
11. The learned counsel for the State, Mr S. Thananjayan has on the contrary, submitted that the matter had been further investigated and a fresh charge-sheet had been filed and a perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that the statements of witnesses who had been examined by PW 25 had been re-examined as also the statements of several other persons had been recorded in addition to some statements under Section 164 CrPC. He has, accordingly, urged that in a case where the Court felt (as in this case the High Court did) that the investigation had been sidetracked it was always open to the Court to direct further investigation in the interest of justice and could not leave it to the whims of a dishonest police officer to scuttle an investigation.
12. The learned counsel has relied on several judgments in support of his plea as well. It has further been submitted that PW 1 and PW 2 were the daughter and the grandson of the deceased and as their presence was natural, there was absolutely no reason to disbelieve them, the more so, as PW 2 was an educated witness studying for his Law degree. It has also been pleaded that the High Court had in any case separated the grain from the chaff and given the benefit to such of the accused whose presence was felt to be doubtful.
13. Mr S.B Sanyal, the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant appellant in Criminal Appeals Nos. 767-68 of 2008 has pointed out that Section 149 IPC had been applied to the case and even assuming that no injury had been caused by the acquitted accused their mere presence was enough on the facts of the case to involve them in the incident. He has also urged that the reasons given by the High Court in acquitting the accused were not justified.
14. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 173(8) CrPC reads as under:
“173. (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”
15. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 does talk about “further investigation”. The term “further investigation” has, however, not been defined in the Code and must therefore depend on the facts of each case as culled from the record. We find from a perusal thereof that PW 27 had made a comprehensive further investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses who had already been examined by PW 25 and in addition the statements of several other witnesses as well and their statements under Section 164 CrPC and on reappraisal had filed a fresh charge-sheet.
16. We also notice that the question as to whether this procedure amounted to a further investigation or re-investigation had been taken up by the accused in the trial court as well, had been discussed comprehensively and had been repelled. When this matter came to the High Court a slight deviation had been made from the stand taken in the trial court and the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel were recorded verbatim as under:
“Though PW 27 continued the further investigation on the basis of the order passed by the High Court, Madras, it cannot be said that PW 27 has conducted a fair investigation and filed the final report.”
17. It will be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid quote that there was no criticism as to direction of the further investigation by PW 27 but the point raised was that the said investigation had not been fair. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in fact PW 27 had carried out a further investigation in the matter and not a re-investigation.
18. Mr Natarajan has relied on several judgments in support of his plea that what had been done was a re-investigation. They are K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223, Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar (2008) 5 SCC 413, Mithabhai Pashabh Patel v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332 and Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 346. The judgments merely reiterate the legal position that further investigation and not a fresh re-investigation can be made but, as already mentioned above, the nature of the investigation whether it amounts to a further investigation or a re-investigation has to be seen from the nature of the investigation conducted. On facts we find that the investigation conducted by PW 27 was in the nature of a further investigation.
19. We have also considered Mr Natarajan's arguments with respect to the finding recorded by the High Court on the evidence. He has first and foremost pointed out that though the trial court had convicted all the accused, the High Court in appeal had acquitted several of them and it had, therefore, to be presumed that the evidence did not justify a conviction.
20. We notice that necessary investigation into the facts has already been made by the High Court as also by the trial court. We would ordinarily be hesitant to reappraise the evidence. We have nevertheless done so and have gone through the statements of the two primary witnesses, PWs 1 and 3 (sic 2). We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve their statements as fortified by the medical evidence given by PW 17, Dr. Ramesh who had found the following injuries:
1. A deep cut injury in the centre of the head with fracture of parietal bone on left side size 10 cm × 3 cm. Blood coming from the fracture site.
2. A cut injury on left parietal region size 5 cm × 3 cm near left ear.
3. A deep cut injury with fracture of occipital bone size 6 cm × 3 cm. Blood coming from fracture site.
4. A cut injury near left eye size 4 cm × 2 cm.
5. A cut injury on left jaw size 4 cm × 2 cm.
6. A cut injury on left shoulder size 3 cm × 2 cm.
7. A cut injury on left forearm size 3 cm × 2 cm.
8. Two cut injuries on the back on left side of lower chest size 3 cm × 1 cm.
9. A cut injury near right back side ear size 2 cm × 1 cm. Hyoid bone is intact.
21. Both the trial court as well as the High Court had found that the eyewitnesses' account stands substantiated by the medical evidence. It must also be borne in mind that the factum of animosity between the parties stands admitted. In such a case the real assailants would not be left out although false implication could be a possibility. It is in this background that the High Court has already granted the benefit to some of the accused on the understanding that the medical evidence did not indicate their presence as the acquitted persons were armed with sticks and no blunt weapon injuries had been detected by the doctor.
22. Likewise, we are of the opinion that Criminal Appeals Nos. 767-68 of 2008 filed by P. Chellam also lack merit for the reasons given above. This Court would be hesitant to reverse a finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court or the High Court where the circumstances are not palpably wrong and the judgment is not perverse. These adjectives cannot be applied to the judgment of the High Court in the present case.
23. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.
Alert