Mani @ Manikandan vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 6915 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.A.No.332 of 2016


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 04.04.2022

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                Crl.A.No.332 of 2016


                     Mani @ Manikandan                                        ... Appellant

                                                         Vs.

                     State by
                     Inspector of Police,
                     R-10 M.G.R. Nagar Police Station,
                     Chennai – 600 083.                                       ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal

                     Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed in

                     S.C.No.82 of 2011 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai,

                     convicting the appellant for the offence under section 304 Part I of IPC and

                     sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay

                     fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment

                     and consequently to acquit the appellant.



                     1/13



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.A.No.332 of 2016




                                        For Appellant     :     Mr.T.Saikrishnan
                                                                for M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan

                                        For Respondent    :     Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
                                                                Government Advocate


                                                          JUDGMENT

The appellant/accused in S.C.No.82 of 2011 was convicted by the

learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, by judgment dated

24.02.2016, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple

imprisonment for offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. Against which, the

appellant preferred this appeal.

2.The gist of the case is that the appellant/A1 along with Rajesh @

Rajasekar/A2 and Soundararajan/A3 are the accused in this case. Since the

said Soundararajan is a minor, he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Court.

The appellant/A1 and Rajesh @ Rajasekar/A2 were tried by the Trial Court.

The appellant was in relationship with one Rajakumari, both of them got

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

married and after marriage, there was some dispute between them.

Therefore, the said Rajakumari was living separately from the appellant.

The appellant took steps for reconciliation but the said Rajakumari refused

to live with him. Thereafter, the said Rajakumari developed relationship

with one Selvam, due to which the appellant got enraged and he wanted to

teach her a lesson. On 24.07.2007, the appellant along with Rajesh @

Rajasekar and Soundararajan met at a shop in M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai,

devised a plan to buy acid and planned to throw acid on the said

Rajakumari. On 25.07.2007, all the three accused went to Flower Bazaar

area, bought 250 ml of Sulphuric acid. Thereafter on 27.07.2007 at about

7.00 am the said Soundararajan was asked to monitor the movements of

Rajakumari, who in turn informed the appellant and other accused that the

said Rajakumari and her friend Shanthi were riding bi-cycle and proceeding

near the Kasi Theatre underpass bridge. The appellant along with other

accused/A2 came to the place in a M80 Motor cycle rode by A2 and the

appellant was sitting as pillion rider carrying the acid can. On nearing the

place of occurrence, the appellant threw acid on the said Rajakumari and

thereafter fled away. The said Rajakumari, who sustained acid throw, fell

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

down, cried in pain, her friend Shanthi, who was riding bicycle alongside

took her to K.K.Nagar Peripheral Hospital, where P.W.21 Casualty Doctor

examined her, finding that the acid throw was serious in nature, referred to

K.M.C. Hospital. P.W.1 informed P.W.28/father of the victim Rajakumari

about the incident and she left home. Thereafter, the said Rajakumari was

taken to K.M.C. Hospital where P.W.24/Casualty Doctor examined the

victim and found that she was brought dead.

3.On receipt of the complaint from P.W.28/father of the deceased,

P.W.29 registered a case in Crime No.1829 of 2007 for the offence under

Section 302 IPC, by FIR/Ex.P12. P.W.29 visited the scene of occurrence,

recorded the statement of witnesses, conducted inquest, prepared

observation mahazar, rough sketch and thereafter sent the body for

Postmortem. P.W.23/Postmortem Doctor confirmed that the death is due to

acid burn. Further the burnt pieces of flesh, dress and the articles found on

the deceased were seized and sent for forensic study, all confirms the

presence of Sulphuric acid. The Postmortem report, marked as Ex.P9 and

the Forensic reports, marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. Thereafter, P.W.29 got

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

transferred, P.W.30, who took up the investigation was monitoring the

movement of accused, formed a special team and was in search of the

accused. On 10.11.2010, P.W.30 received information that the appellant/A1

was arrested in a case in Crime No.278/2010 for the offence under Section

394 IPC by Kandakottai Police Station, Pudukottai District and was

confined in Prison. Thereafter, in the presence of Jail Superintendent, a

formal arrest was made and through PT warrant, the appellant was brought

before the learned Magistrate where a petition for police custody filed and

the appellant/A1 was taken under custody. The appellant gave a confession

statement, based on his confession the role played by other accused got

revealed and M.O.5/Plastic can was recovered. On completion of

investigation, charge sheet filed, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined, Ex.P1 to

Ex.P21 and M.O.1 to M.O.8 were marked. The Trial Court on conclusion of

trial, convicted the appellant as stated above and acquitted the other

accused/A2.

4.The contention of the appellant is that P.W.1 is the friend of the

deceased Rajakumari, who was riding bicycle along with her on 27.07.2007

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

near Kasi Theatre cause way bridge, at that time, the appellant is said to

have thrown acid on her and fled away. P.W.1 in her statement submit that

she took the deceased to K.K. Nagar Peripheral Hospital, admitted her in the

Hospital and left to home immediately, informing about the incident to

P.W.28/father of the deceased Rajakumari. P.W.28 states that on receipt of

information, he went to the scene of occurrence, found his daughter's

dupatta, thereafter went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. On

the contrary, in the complaint/Ex.P11 it is recorded that on 27.07.2007 at

about 9.15 a.m., P.W.9 received information from Casualty Department,

K.M.C. Hospital, thereafter he went to the Hospital, recorded the statement

of P.W.28/father of the deceased and registered a case at 11.00 a.m. Thus,

the evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.28. Further, the

origin of the complaint is highly doubtful as P.W.1 states that the Police

were informed even at while she was in K.K.Nagar Peripheral Hospital, but

the specific case of the prosecution is that they received information from

K.M.C. Hospital. Likewise, the statement of P.W.28/father of the deceased

is also highly doubtful. Added to it, there is no evidence to show that the

appellant purchased Sulphuric acid. P.W.27/Chemical dealer not supported

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

the case of the prosecution and there is no material to show that the

appellant purchased any chemical. Further, in this case the occurrence is of

the year 2007, the appellant was arrested three years thereafter in a case at

Pudukottai in the year 2010 and thereafter, he was shown arrest in this case.

M.O.5 was recovered after three years and this recovery is also highly

doubtful. The confession statement of the appellant is recorded in the

presence of P.W.8/Village Administrative Officer who work in close tandem

with the police, who are obliging witnesses, the admitted portion of the

statement given by the appellant/A1 was marked as Ex.P3. Thus, it is

submitted that the appellant is falsely implicated in this case.

5.It is further submitted that the appellant had some dispute with this

wife, they were living separately, in fact the deceased Rajakumari developed

relationship with one Selvam and the same was objected by the appellant.

Further, the appellant was arrested three years after the occurrence and no

identification parade conducted to identify him. There is no material to

show that P.W.1 knew the appellant earlier and she was familiar with him,

added to it, the witnesses present near the scene of occurrence, P.W.2 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

P.W.3 not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that

the only witness in this case, P.W.1 who identifying the appellant is highly

doubtful, further the manner in which she went home from the hospital after

admitting the deceased Rajakumari even before any one came to her aid.

Further, there is no circumstance to link the appellant, to be the reason for

throwing acid on the victim. The chemical dealer/P.W.27 not supported the

case of the prosecution. Therefore, merely on surmises and conjunctures the

appellant cannot be convicted. Hence, he prayed for acquittal.

6.The learned Government Advocate submits that in this case

witnesses are natural, P.W.1 is the witness who was riding the bicycle along

with the deceased. The deceased and the appellant got married earlier, they

had strained relationship which is not a disputed fact. P.W.1 clearly states

that often appellant used to come and disturb Rajakumari while she was

proceeding to work and at the work place, at that time, P.W.1 was with her.

Further, P.W.28/father of the deceased states that his daughter used to

complain about the harassment of the appellant, the appellant was not a

desirable character, hence, P.W.28 and his family members not approved the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

marriage and relationship of the deceased with the appellant. The petitioner

along with another was running a mobile service centre in M.G.R. Nagar,

the landlord of the shop confirms about the appellant running a shop. Even

the appellant's friends P.W.7 and P.W.10 confirm that the appellant was in a

strained relationship with his wife, he was very much pained and later he

intended to teach a lesson to the victim, his estranged wife. Further

P.W.22/Sub-Inspector, All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar confirms

that four months prior to the occurrence, there was a complaint from the

deceased about the harassment and torture by the appellant, complaint was

received, C.S.R. assigned, both were enquired and let off. Thus, the

appellant strained and vengeful relationship against the deceased is

confirmed. On 27.07.2007, the victim was riding bicycle, at that time, the

appellant who came to the place of occurrence in M80 Motorcycle as pillion

rider along with A2, threw the acid on the victim Rajakumari. After the

incident, the Mobike was sold to a second-hand dealer by A2 which is

confirmed by the evidence of P.W.13 to P.W.15. The victim succumbed to

burn injuries due to Sulphuric acid throw which is confirmed by

P.W.23/Postmortem Doctor in the Postmortem report/Ex.P9. Further,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

P.W.20/Forensic Expert, who examined M.O.1 to M.O.5 as well as the burnt

flesh of the victim sent by the Postmortem Doctor confirm the presence of

Sulphuric acid on her and the Forensic reports marked as Ex.P6 and P7.

P.W.20 confirms the presence of unadulterated Sulphuric acid, which will be

in thick and mercurial form which is lethal. Thus, the prosecution with

cogent evidence and materials proved its case. It is further submitted that

the death is instantaneous, the occurrence took place on 27.07.2007 at 7.00

a.m. and the death occurred within two hours thereafter. Therefore, the

Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials

placed on record, it is seen that P.W.1 is the eye witness to the occurrence,

who was riding a bicycle along with the deceased Rajakumari at the time of

acid throw. The acid was thrown by the appellant is confirmed by the

evidence of P.W.1, further the deceased also informed P.W.1 that her

husband threw the acid on her. Immediately after the acid attack, the victim

was taken to K.K.Nagar Peripheral Hospital, where P.W.21/Casualty Doctor

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

examined her, given accident register/Ex.P8 and thereafter she was rushed to

the K.M.C. Hospital for better treatment, where P.W.24/Casualty Doctor

confirmed that she was brought dead. Postmortem was conducted by

P.W.23 and the Postmortem certificate was marked as Ex/P9. Thus, the

victim died unnaturally immediately due to the acid throw by the appellant

and the presence of the appellant in the scene of occurrence is also proved.

The presence of acid on the material objects and on the skin/flesh of the

victim is confirmed by the Forensic report. The petitioner not attended the

funeral of his wife absconded for years. With much effort, the Investigating

Officer secured the accused after three years, on his confession,

M.O.5/Plastic can used to carry Sulphuric acid was recovered. There is no

reason to doubt the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses and all reports in

this case. The ocular evidence, medical evidence and forensic evidence

confirm the case of the prosecution. Thus, the Trial Court in detail analysed

the evidence of the witnesses, the materials produced and rightly convicted

the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the

finding of the Trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

8.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

04.04.2022 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cse To

1.The Inspector of Police, R-10 M.G.R. Nagar Police Station Chennai – 600 083

2.The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Crl.A.No.332 of 2016

04.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis