Madras High Court
Ramaraj vs State on 7 October, 2021
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
CRL.A (MD)No.556 of 2018
Ramaraj .. Appellant/P.W.6
-vs-
1.State:
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Bodi Rural Police Station,
Theni District. .. 1st Respondent/Complainant
(Cr.No.92/2009)
2.Murugan .. 2nd Respondent/Sole Accused
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam in S.C.No.
162 of 2010, dated 30.08.2011.
For Appellant :: Mr.Tamilamuthan
for A.K.Azagarsami
For 1st Respondent :: Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
For 2nd Respondent :: Mr.S.Rajendran
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
Mr.C.Ramesh, appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the second
respondent on 24.04.2019, was not present before this Court for the last
two hearings. Hence, we appoint Mr.S.Rajendran (M.S.No.1357 of 2008,
Cell:9442760645) as legal aid counsel for the second
respondent/accused.
2.Against the order of acquittal, P.W.6, father of the deceased filed
this Criminal Appeal.
3.The 1st respondent is arrayed as Accused in S.C.No.162 of 2010,
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Periyakulam, and he stood charged for the offences under Section 376
r/w 511, 302 and 201 I.P.C. The trial Court after trial acquitted the
accused from the above said charges and against the order of acquittal,
this Criminal Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
4.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased in this case, namely, Mala, is the daughter of P.Ws.6
and 7 and niece of the accused. At the time of occurrence, she was
residing at the accused's house. On 11.04.2009, she was found dead with
burn injuries in an agricultural land belongs to one Ariyamala W/o.
Ganesan and Manimaran S/o. Ganesan. After coming to know about the
same, P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer, filed a complaint (Ex.P.1)
before the respondent police.
5.P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint
registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.92 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
and sent the F.I.R. (Ex.P.8) to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court,
and copy to the higher officials. Then, he went to the scene of
occurrence, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P.12) and rough sketch
(Ex.P.13) in the presence of witnesses, enquired witnesses, conducted
inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and sent the body
for postmortem through one Thiagarajan, Head Constable, and the file to
the Inspector of Police for further investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
6.P.W.11, Dr.Sivakumar, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,
Bodinayakkanur, Theni District, conducted postmortem autopsy and
prepared postmortem report (Ex.P.3) and found the following injuries:
“External examination : Scalp hairs are singled. Bleeding
from both nostrils & both ears present. 1° and 2° Burns seems
over the face, neck, anterior and posterior thorax, front and
back of abdomen, front and back of both upper limbs genitalia,
front & back of both thighs posterior aspect of both legs seen.
Ruptured blisters seen over right hip and left thigh. 3° Burn
with charring of muscles seen over right thigh.
Internal examination:
Thorax: No fracture ribs. No blood or fluid in thoracic cavity
lungs, congested. Heart is normal.
Abdomen: Stomach is empty. Stomach was normal. No specific
odour. Intestines empty. No specific odour. All organs are
congested. Uterus is empty. Hymen is absent.
Skull : Brain paranchyma is normal. No fracture. Spine is
normal. Bloodless dissection of neck. No ligature mark seen.
Hyoid bone normal. Carbon soot seen in the pharynx and
trachea.
Viscera preserved for chemical analysis. Vaginal swabs sent for
analysis.”
He gave his opinion that, the deceased would have died of Hypovolemic
shock as a result of extensive burns, 13 to 17 hours prior to postmortem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
7.In the meantime, Palanisamy, Inspector of Police, on receipt of
the records from P.W.16, continued the investigation and examined the
witnesses. Thereafter, one Nallu, Inspector of Police, continued the
investigation and examined the witnesses, and handed over the
investigation to P.W.17, and he continued the investigation, after
examining the postmortem doctor, he altered the F.I.R. for the offence
under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared alteration report (Ex.P.15). In the
mean time, the accused said to have given extra-judicial confession,
admitted the guilt to the Village Administrative Officer, Kannan.
Thereafter, P.W.17 arrested the accused and on such arrest, the accused
voluntarily gave his confession. Based on admissible portion of
confession, he recovered a plastic can (M.O.1) and sent the accused for
remanding to judicial custody. Based on the further investigation, he
again altered the F.I.R. to Sections 376, 511, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and
prepared alteration report (Ex.P.17), after concluding the investigation,
filed final report for the offences under Sections 376, 511, 302 and 201
I.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
8.Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges
for the offences under Sections 376 r/w 511, 302 and 201 I.P.C., and the
accused denied the same as false. In order to prove its case, the
prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, marked 18 documents
and also produced 2 material objects.
9.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the Village
Administrative Officer, who gave the complaint. P.W.2 is the wife of the
accused. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, neighbours of the deceased, turned hostile.
P.Ws.6 and 7 are father and mother of the deceased. They were working
at Kerala and after coming to know about the occurrence, they came to
their village. P.Ws.8 and 9, witnesses to observation mahazar and rough
sketch. P.W.10 has given treatment to the deceased and he also turned
hostile. P.W.11, doctor, conducted postmortem. P.W.12, Head Constable,
handed over the alteration report to the Court. P.W.13 is an Accountant in
a Government Scheme, where the deceased was working. P.Ws.14 and
15, mahazar witnesses, turned hostile. P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police,
registered the F.I.R. P.W.17, Inspector of Police, conducted investigation
and filed the final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
10.Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found
that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and
hence, acquitted the accused from the charges framed. Challenging the
acquittal of the accused, the appellant/P.W.6 is before this Court with this
Criminal Appeal.
11.Heard Mr.Tamalamuthan, learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant/P.W.6, Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecution,
appearing for the 1st respondent/State and Mr.R.Rajendran, learned Legal
Aid Counsel, appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused and perused the
materials available on record.
12.It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The deceased Malar is
the niece of the accused. At the time of occurrence, she was residing in
their house and she was found dead in a remote place. The prosecution
relied upon two major circumstances, namely, recovery of pair of ear
studs (M.O.2) worn by the deceased from the house of the accused and
extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the accused before
one Kannan, Village Administrative Officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
13.So far as of the recovery of M.O.2 is concerned, admittedly at
the time of occurrence, the deceased was residing in the house of the
accused and M.O.2 was found from the house of the accused and the
same was not recovered based on the confession of the accused. So far as
extra-judicial confession is concerned, P.W.17, Investigating Officer,
stated that the accused appear before the Village Administrative Officer
and voluntarily gave a confession. The confession statement was not
placed before the Court and the Village Administrative Officer was also
not examined before the Court. Except those two circumstances, no other
circumstance was shown to establish the guilt of the accused. The trial
Court considering those circumstances acquitted the accused.
14.We have carefully considered the entire materials available on
record, we are of the considered view that, the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and we find no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, and we find no merit in this
criminal appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
15.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal (MD) No.556 of 32018 is
dismissed and the judgment of acquittal, by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, in S.C.No.162 of 2010, by the
judgment dated 30.08.2011, is confirmed. The Legal Services Committee
is directed to pay the remuneration payable to Mr.S.Rajendran, Legal Aid
Counsel for the second respondent, appointed by this Court.
(V.B.D.J.,) (R.P.A.,J)
07.10.2021
Internet: yes/no
Index : yes/no
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy
of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Periyakulam.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakanur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Bodi Rural Police Station,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.556 of 2018
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
sj
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Copy to
1. The Section Officer,
Criminal Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
2.The Legal Services Committee,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.(MD) No.556 of 2018
Delivered on
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
