Madras High Court
State Represented By vs M.Mukesh on 9 February, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
State represented by:
The Inspector of Police,
Selaiyur Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.1448/2013) .. Petitioner
Vs.
M.Mukesh .. Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. to grant
leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the acquittal of the
respondent/Accused in S.C.No.39 of 2014 by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu dated 29.01.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM,J.)
This Criminal Original Petition is to file an appeal against the order of
acquittal passed in Sessions case in S.C.No.39 of 2014 on the file of the
Principal Sessions Court, Kanchipuram district, Chengalpet on 29.07.2018.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused loved
Sathurshini, the deceased, aged about 18 years, without the knowledge of the
family members. On 19.07.2013, they got married and their marriage was
registered in Royapuram Sub Registrar's Office. The parents of the deceased
gave a complaint before the Selaiyur Police Station, where the matter was
compromised. The deceased went along with her parents, but the accused
continued his relationship with her. On 19.09.2013, at about 5.10 p.m., the
accused in an inebriated mood, went to the house of the deceased situated at
Madambakkam. The accused asked her brother namely Ujesh Kumar about
his sister and assaulted him with a knife and murdered him. Sathurshini came
out of the house and found that the accused had assaulted her brother and had
murdered him. Therefore, when she shouted, the accused attacked her also
with a Lknife and murdered her. Thus, he murdered two persons. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
he was prosecuted by the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur Police Station for the
offence under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) in S.C.No.39 of 2014 before the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu, who
acquitted him on 29.01.2018. Challenging the acquittal, the state filed this
appeal with a delay of 673 days, which was condoned by this Court in
Crl.M.P.No.3040 of 2020 in Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020 on 05.02.2021.
Now, the Special Leave Petition is under consideration.
3. Heard Mr.K.Prabhakar learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
appearing for the petitioner/State.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses properly.
5. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses
and marked 14 Exhibits and marked 14 Material objects besides MO2A. No
witnesses were examined on the defence side, but two documents (Exs.D1 &
D2) were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
6. The trial Court, after considering the evidences and materials on
record, observed as follows:
''30.Fortunately the Investigation Officer is
retired from service. He has deliberately done the
investigation without basic knowledge. He visited the
place of occurrence immediately after the alleged
occurrence. There are materials such as finger print
and traces to connect the culprit with the crime. Being
a grave case of double murder he has to utilize the
services of finger print sniffer dog etc., As per the
complaint around 19.30 the complainant fixed the
known accused for the crime. He is a resident of
nearby locality. Immediately the Inspector of Police
has not taken any steps to arrest the accused. On the
other hand the next day he registered hin and during
the confession recorded in Cr.No.1452/2013 he has
recorded statement implicating him in this case. So
deliberately he registered the second case knowing that
it is a false case in order to detain the accused under
Goondas Act. Being a police officer whatever be the
gravity of the offence he has to act according to Law.
Since because the accused appears to have committed
double murder, instead of investigating the double
murder case properly he has shown interest in
detaining the accused under Goondas Act by
registering a false case. The conduct of registering the
second case is fatal to the grave case of double murder.
Further he has implanted Mo3 hammer and MO2A
knife which is in no way fir in to the cover of MO3
recovered in the place of occurrence to connect the
accused with the crime without looking for other
possibilities. Such a conduct itself would go to show
the total bias and unfair investigation by the
Investigation Officer. Even in registering two cases
there is alapse in assigning crime numbers. For a
crime No.1451/2013 no FIR has been registered. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
serial number of the printed FIR forns in
Cr.No.1448/2013 would go to prove the same, He has
laid charge sheet in both the cases, Bothe the cases
were taken uo for trial simultaneously at the instance
of the defence. The second case proved to be false.
Such being the conduct of the investigation officer the
evidence given by him in this case has been shaken
much.
31.Under such circumstances, though it is a case
of double murder, because of the investigation flaws
and lack of scientific evidence, this Court is not in a
position to convict the accused. There are chances of
false implications leaving the real culprits as
contended by the defence.
32.In view of the foregoing reasons and the
decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defence,
the defence is able to create ample reasonable doubts
in the minds of the Court. Though the prosecution is
able to create suspicion on the accused is failed to
prove the same by its own flaws and misdeeds. Hence,
this Court is unable to fix the accused guilty. Suspicion
however grave be it cannot substitute proof as rightly
contended by the defence. There are reasonable doubts
in the prosecution case. When two views are possible
obviously the view in favour has to be given preference
in criminal trial. Thus, this court finds fit to give the
benefit of doubt to the accused.''
7. At this stage we take the guidelines given by the Supreme court
in Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka reported in [2007 4 SCC 415] which
laid down the following principle:
''4.An appellate Court, however, must bear in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless
he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court and
certainly not weakened.
5.If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.''
8. We have carefully perused the evidences and materials on record
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
and also perused the Judgment of the trial Court. We are of the opinion this
case is not one in which the Court will interfere with the order of acquittal,
inasmuch as there is no arguable case for the State either on a question of
law or fact. Hence, we find that there is no reason to grant leave to file an
appeal against the order of acquittal.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition seeking leave to prefer
an appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed at the SR stage itself.
(P.N.P.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.)
09.02.2021
vsn
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
vsn
To
1. The Principal Sessions
Kancheepuram,
Chengalpattu.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Selaiyur Police Station,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
Crl.O.P.No.2114 of 2021
in
Crl.A.SR.No.10228 of 2020
09.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
