Click to edit Master title style

Vijayan Rajan V
State of kelara
AIR 1999 SC 1086

1
Click to edit Master title style

Date Of Judgment: 16th February1999

Bench: Justice G.B.Pattanaik &

Justice S.Rajendra Babu

2 2
Click to edit Master title style
Facts of the case
1. Murder of Majeendran by means of a revolver at
6:00AM on 9.10.1981.
2. The Accused No. 1 i.e. Vijayan @Rajan & The Accsued
No. 2 i.e. Sadanand were charged with Ss 120B, 109,
447, 302 and 201 R/W S. 34 of IPC and also under Ss
35 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
3. Sessions judge acquitted both the accused persons.
4. H.C. Conviced both under S. 302 read with 120B(1) of
IPC.
5. H e n c e t h i s A p p e a l .

3 3
Click to edit Master title style
Prosecution’s Case
1. Both Accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to
cause death of Majeendran. Pusuant to this and on
being instigated by Sadanandan, Vijayan went to the
house of Majeendran at 6.00 a.m. on 9.10.1981 and
fired two shots at him from a revolver.
2. Motive - Sadanandan was a rising abkari contractor and
was getting financial help fro his Uncle. Deceased
Majeendran was in same business and had received
finances from Sadanand's Uncle. Sadanandan was
disturbed, thought that his uncle would stop rendering
the same financial help to him therefore he Conspired to
kill the Deceased.
4 4
Click to edit Master title style
Prosecution’s Case
1. Although the prosecution examined as many as 70
witnesses and exhibited 110 documents but there is no
eye witness to the said occurrence therefore
Prosecution relied on circumstantioal evidence.
2. The three important witnesses on which reliance was
placed to establish chain of circumstances were PW 3,
PW 4, PW 9.

5 5
Click to edit Master title style
Defence Case - Vijayan
1. Reliance on evidence of PW3 to come to the
conclusion that she saw accused Vijayan on the
early hours of the date of occurrence wholly
unsustainable and grossly erroneous.
2. Decision of High Court was Influenced by the
Sensation created by the case in the locality rather
than on a proper appreciation of the evidence on
record.

6 6
Click to edit Master title style
Defence Case - Sadanand
• There is not an iota of material in support of
establishing a charge of conspiracy under Section
120B of IPC.
• Therefore, Conviction of the Appellant not
maintainable.

7 7
 Discussion
Click to bystyle
edit Master title Supreme Court

1. In case of Vijayan- SC Discussed the Credibility of PW 3, PW4

and PW9.
2. In case of Sadanand – SC Discussed the Credibility of PW 7
and PW 5.

8 8
Click toProsecution
edit Master title Witness
style No. 3
1. PW3, The maid servant of the deceased, deposed that during the
early hours when somebody repeatedly rang the bell she opened
the door & found a man standing who wanted to see her master
therefore she called him and shortly thereafter she heard the
sound of two gun shots and when she went back she did not find
the man who had earlier given the bell and during her evidence in
Court she identified the man to be accused Vijayan.
2. His Test Identification Parade was discarded by the learned
Sessions Judge as it was apparent from the evidence of PW3 that
the photograph of accused Vijayan was shown to her before the
TI Parade and further just before she was entering the Sub-jail to
identify the accused somebody had told her to identify the tallest
man shown in the parade.
3. Hence SC did not relied upon this Witness.
9 9
Click toProsecution
edit Master title Witness
style No. 9
1. On the date of occurrence PW 9 was returning after supplying
milk and then he saw accused Vijayan running away without any
chappal and in a worried manner. HC relied upon his evidence
essentially on the ground that he saw accused being clad with a
blue pant and shirt and was running without any footwear
2. SC Opined that it is highly improbable for a man to remember
any person running on the street without chappal.
3. Also when Test Identification Parade was conducted not only
the photograph of the accused had been shown to PW3 and in
all probability must have been shown to Pw 9 but also in all the
local newspapers the photograph had already been printed.
4. Therefore the testimony of PW 9 was vitiated.
1010
Click toProsecution
edit Master title Witness
style No. 4
1. PW 4 is a young girl living a few yards away from the house of
deceased deposed that she heard the sound of somebody running
and when she turned she saw accused Vijayan running away after
crossing a water channel and was wearing a blue pant and blue
shirt.
2. Albeit she identified Vijayan in the TI Parade but for the reasons
already advanced while discussing the evidence of PWs 3 & 9
identification of accused in TI Parade cannot be relied upon.
3. Also much before the holding of TI Parade photograph of the
accused Vijayan had been published in the newspaper and
because of certain sensation in the locality it had lot of publicity and
there was sufficient opportunity for the witnesses being shown the
accused person.
4. Therefore the testimony of this witness was not relied upon.
1111
Click to edit Master title style
Test Identification Parade

1. Chunthuram v. The State Of Chhattisgarh (delivered-29

October, 2020)- In this Case the SC held that
The Test Identification evidence is not substantive piece of
evidence but can only be used, in corroboration of statements in
Court.

1212
 Prosecution
Click to Witness
edit Master title style No. 7
1. PW 7 was the person who saw the accused boarding auto
rickshaw which was driven by PW2. Though PW7 also had
identified accused in the Test Identification Parade which had
been conducted by the Magistrate PW61 but in the Court he
could not identify the accused and, therefore, the so called
identification in Test Identification Parade loses its importance.
2. Moreover upon re-examining him Prosecution brought out from
him that one Joseph had approached him and paid him Rs.500/-
for making such statement in the Court.

1313
Click to edit Master title style
Prosecution Witness No. 5
1. Deceased made dying declaration to the PW5.
2. But it merely indicated that the deceased had made statement
that Anandan people have killed him but there is nothing to
indicate that the deceased knew Vijayan earlier, or in any way
relate to the Accused.
3. Therefore there was no incriminating circumstance which could
be relied upon to bring home the charge of conspiracy on the
Accused No. 2.

1414
Click Decision oftitle
to edit Master Supreme
style Court

1. Supreme Court placed reliance on the above discussion and

thus set aside the order of conviction by the High Court and
upheld the decision of the Sessions Court
2. Thereby Acquitted both the Appellants.

1515
Click to edit Master title style

Thank You

Submitted by:
VIVEK KUMAR BANSAL
B.COM LL.B.
5TH SEMESTER
154/18

16