Madras High Court
Sappani @ Murugesan vs The State Rep.By on 29 April, 2022
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2022
(Reserved on 25.04.2022)
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Criminal Appeal(MD)Nos.355 and 352 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Crl.A(MD)No.355 of 2020:-
Sappani @ Murugesan ... Appellant/A1
vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Abiramam,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.54 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ashokkumar, Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/26
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Crl.A(MD)No.352 of 2020:-
Sappani @ Murugesan ... Appellant/A1
vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Abiramam,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.53 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.28 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ashokkumar, Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD)No.27 of 2021:-
Muthuramalingam ... Appellant/A6
vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Kamuthi Taluk
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.54 of 2006) ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/26
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.J.William Christopher
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD)No.29 of 2021:-
Muthuramalingam ... Appellant/A6
vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Kamuthi Taluk
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.53 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.28 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.J.William Christopher
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/26
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Crl.A(MD)No.25 of 2022:-
Moorthy @ Thiru Moorthy ... Appellant/A5
vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Kamuthi Taluk
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.54 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Vijayaraja
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD)No.153 of 2022:-
Ravi @ Ravi Shanmugam ... Appellant/A4
vs.
State, rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.54 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/26
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD)No.257 of 2022:-
Gnanavelpandian ... Appellant/A3
vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by the
Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.54 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Karunanithi, for
Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD)No.258 of 2022:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/26
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Gnanavelpandian ... Appellant/A3
vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by the
Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.53 of 2006) ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to set aside the conviction and sentence as imposed on him by the
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram
District, made in Sessions Case No.28 of 2007 dated 23.09.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Karunanithi, for
Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
All these appeals are filed by the accused persons who have
been convicted for offences under Sections 302 of IPC read with Sections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
34, 396 and 120(b) of IPC. There were 8 accused involved in S.C.No.27
of 2007 in which, the charge against the accused persons was that they
murdered one Subramanian, Sub Inspector of Police, on the fateful day.
A2 and A8 died pending trial and A7 was acquitted of all the charges.
The other accused persons namely, A1 and A3 to A6 have come up with
the appeals. There was another incident of attack on a Head Constable
Mr.Bose that has preceded the attack on the Sub Inspector of Police on
the same day, for which, a case was registered in Crime No.53/2006
which was later converted to Sessions Case No.28 of 2007. The accused
therein were charged for the offences under Sections 307, 392 read with
395 and 397 of IPC. The accused in S.C.No.28/2007 are the same
persons as in S.C.No.27 of 2007. Here also, A2 and A8 died pending trial
and A7 was acquitted of all the charges. All other accused were
punished with imprisonment for a period of 7 years. While A1, A3 and
A6 have come up with the appeals, A4 and A5 have undergone the
sentence.
2. In S.C.No.27/2007, a complaint was lodged by PW1 Mr.Bose
who is the injured Head Constable in the other case namely, S.C.No.
28/2007. According to him, while he was returning to the police station
by around 07.00 p.m., on 28.04.2006, he was waylaid by the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
persons near Nanthicheri bus stop and was attacked by them. They tied
him up with a lungi and took his motorcycle away. They also took away
some of his valuables. After sometime, he managed to escape and
walked up to the village. Upon reaching the village, he had informed one
Neelamegam-PW22 and Parameswaran-PW16. They, in turn, informed
PW2-Sub Inspector of Police-Malar of the attack. She assembled
Constables and went to Nanthicheri bus stop, there, they found the Sub
Inspector Subramanian lying with injuries. Both the injured persons
were taken in an Auto to the Government Hospital, Kamuthi and from
there, Bose was shifted to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. The Sub
Inspector Subramanian was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai, where he was declared dead on arrival. Therefore, the accused
persons were charged under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 396 and
120(b) of IPC. Upon receipt of a complaint, an FIR was registered.
Though the FIR was originally registered under Sections 147, 148, 341,
342 read with Section 379 of IPC, upon the death of the Sub Inspector of
Police Subramanian, the same was altered to Section 302 IPC. Upon
registration of the FIR, the same was dispatched to the Court and the
Circle Inspector of Parthibanur visited the scene of occurrence at 01.30
a.m., on 29.04.2006 and prepared the Observation Mahazar in the
presence of the witnesses. He had also enquired the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Subramanian at 22.10 hours on 28.04.2006 and had recorded his
statement. The same has been marked as Ex.P45. He had also spoken
about informing the higher-ups and summoning the finger print expert.
Since the Head Constable Mr.Bose was also injured on the same day at
almost the same time, another case was registered in Crime No.53/2006
and an FIR was lodged charging the accused persons under Sections
147, 148, 341, 342 and 379 IPC. The said case was also taken up for
investigation. Subsequently, the accused persons were arrested and it is
claimed that they had also given extra judicial confessions admitting
guilt. After investigation and after collecting the evidence, including the
evidence of the finger print expert and other material objects, some of
which were seized upon the confessions of the accused, a final report
was laid in both the cases charging the accused as aforesaid.
3. In its attempt to bring home the guilt in S.C.No.27/2007, the
prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 56 and Exs.P1 to P70 were marked.
Material Objects Mos.1 to MO28 were exhibited. In S.C.No.28/2007,
PWs 1 to 43 were examined and Exs.P1 to P37 were marked. MOs.1 to
30 were exhibited. The accused persons did not let in any evidence.
4. The learned Sessions Judge upon a consideration of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
evidence that was let in, found A1 and A3 to A6 in S.C.No.27/2007 guilty
of the offences under Section 302 and 396 IPC. A sentence of life
imprisonment was imposed on them, apart from a direction to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/- each, failing which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year. In S.C.No.28 of 2007, the accused persons namely,
A1 and A3 to A6 were convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, was imposed, in default,
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved,
the accused persons have come up with these appeals as stated supra.
5. We have heard Mr.S.Ashokkumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant
in Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, Mr.M.Karunanithi, for
Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the appellant in
Crl.A(MD)Nos.257 and 258 of 2022, Mr.J.William Christopher, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A(MD)Nos.27 and 29 of 2021,
Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.153 of 2022, Mr.J.Vijayaraja, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.25 of 2022 and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution in all
the appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the
Session Court erred in concluding that the appellants were guilty of the
offences charged against them. They would point out to various
discrepancies in the evidence available. The counsel for the appellants
would submit that the accident register which is the first document
shows that the deceased as well as the injured were attacked by
unknown persons. The accident register in S.C.No.27/2007 has been
marked as Ex.P30. The accident register in S.C.No.28 of 2021 has been
marked as Exs.P5 and P6. Drawing our attention to the same,
particularly, the recording therein, which states that alleged to have been
assaulted with Aruval and Valkambu by four unknown persons.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
contend that this first statement has subsequently been contradicted by
the deceased and the injured victim. The claim made is that while being
transferred from Kamuthi Government General Hospital to Madurai
Government Rajaji Hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police/Subramanian
had told the police officers who had accompanied them in the Ambulance
that he has wrongly implicated Moorthy, but it was the accused persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
who had attacked him. It is claimed that the said statement should be
treated as a dying declaration. When the said Subramanian was taken to
Madurai Rajaji Government General Hospital, he was declared dead on
arrival, while the Head Constable Mr.Bose was taken to Meenakshi
Mission Hospital and was treated there. The dying declaration of the
deceased Sub Inspector of Police Subramanian has been marked as
Ex.P22 in S.C.No.27/2007. In the dying declaration recorded by the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, at around 09.50 p.m.,
the Sub Inspector of Police Subramanian, has not identified the accused,
but has stated that 6 or 7 unidentified persons attacked him with
billhooks and sickles at Nanthicheri Vilakku. He has not named those
persons.
8. Relying upon the said dying declaration given before the
Judicial Magistrate, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would vehemently contend that the accused persons have been
subsequently falsely implicated in the crime. They would also invite our
attention to the fact that the prosecution had even gone to the extent of
recording 164 statements of police officials which would show that the
prosecution had made a all-out attempt to fix the accused persons.
Terming the evidence as incoherent and unreliable apart from being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
artificial, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the guilt.
9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the finger print reports cannot be relied upon, as the
relevant finger print report has not been marked in the respective
sessions cases. It is also contended that the call records of the
telephones which have been marked as Exs.P61 to P63 in S.C.No.
27/2007 and Exs.P35 and P36 in S.C.No.28/2007 have also been
jumbled up and they have been marked in different cases. The
complaint in S.C.No.28/2007 has not been made subject matter of the
evidence in S.C.No.27/2007. These irregularities in the recording of
evidence are sought to be taken advantage by the learned counsel for
the appellants to contend that the prosecution had failed in its attempt to
prove the guilt. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of
doubt.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants would also rely upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh alias Kada
vs. State of Punjab reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 135, to contend that
when there are several dying declarations which are in conflict with each
other, the evidentiary value of the dying declaration becomes very weak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
and the same cannot form a basis for a conviction. Drawing our
attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Om alias Hero
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 (4) SCC 345, the learned
counsel for the accused would contend that when a conviction is based
on circumstantial evidence, all the links have to be proved and even if
there is a snap of one link, the conviction cannot be justified. According
to learned counsel for the appellants, the case of the prosecution is
riddled with inconsistencies and the claim of the prosecution that the
deceased Sub Inspector Subramanian had told the police officers
accompanying him in the Ambulance that these 5 accused persons had
attacked him, is highly artificial and the same cannot be accepted.
PW55, the Circle Inspector had recorded the statement of Subramanian
at 22.10 hours on the date of occurrence namely, 28.04.2006. The said
statement was marked as Ex.P45. Even in that statement, Subramanian
had stated that it was one Moorthi who was doing vegetable business in
Muthukulathur, had arranged the attack due to previous property
dispute. Referring to the dying declaration given before the Judicial
Magistrate and the statement before the Circle Inspector marked as
Ex.P45, the learned counsel for the accused would contend that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complicity of the accused
persons in the offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
11. Contending contra, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor would submit that of course, there are certain
procedural infirmities in the trial. He would concede that the initial
mistake made by the prosecution is registration of two FIRs for
occurrences which have happened in a very close proximity of time. He
would submit that the prosecution could have done well to register one
single FIR and investigated the crime. The registration of two FIRs and
two Sessions Cases had lead to documents being interchanged and the
trial being affected. He would further submit that the prosecution should
be given an opportunity to rectify the defects by exercising the power
under Section 386 Cr.P.C., permitting the prosecution to let in additional
evidence. He would also rely upon a judgment of this Court in
K.Thoosimuthu @ Saravanan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in (2019) 4 MLJ (Crl) 589, wherein, a Division Bench of this
Court had considered the mandate under section 223(d) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, by not conducting a joint trial. He would also submit
that non compliance with the mandate of Section 223(d) had resulted in
several irregularities like, the documents getting interchanged and vital
evidence not being produced in the murder case i.e., S.C.No.27/2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, submit that
even on merits, there is unimpeachable evidence to support the
conclusions of the trial Court. He would point out that the finger prints
that were taken from the motorcycles belonging to the deceased and the
injured person tallied with the finger prints of atleast two of the accused
persons namely, Sappani @ Murugesan and Ravi @ Ravi Shanmugam.
He would also draw our attention to the recovery of material objects
based on the confessions of the accused persons.
12. Of course, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
attempt to rely upon the telephone records to show that the accused
persons had, in fact, confessed of the crime to another police officer
namely, Muthupandi, who was examined as PW29. We have our own
doubts regarding the admissibility of such evidence. We do not propose
to express any opinion on the said claim as of now. Recently, in Nasib
Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2022) 2 SCC
89, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the scope of Section
223(a) to (g) and proviso to Section 223 and treated Sections 219 to
221 as exceptions to the rule enumerated under Section 218 of Cr.P.C.
Though separate trials is a norm, the provisions of Sections 219 to 221
and Section 223 serve as an exception to the norm. The Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Supreme Court while examining the scope of conduct of joint trial in a
criminal case, had held that while applying the principles enunciated in
Sections 218 to 223, the Court must apply a two pronged test namely,
(i) whether conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of
the accused, and/or (ii) whether conducting a joint/separate trial would
cause judicial delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had formulated the
following principles with reference to conduct of joint trial and also
separate trials:-
''51. From the decisions of this Court on joint trial and
separate trials, the following principles can be formulated:
51.1. Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be
conducted for distinct offences alleged to be committed by a
person. Sections 219 - 221 provide exceptions to this general
rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint trial
for the offences which a person is charged with may be
conducted. Similarly, under Section 223, a joint trial may be
held for persons charged with different offences if any of the
clauses in the provision are separately or on a combination
satisfied.
51.2. While applying the principles enunciated in Sections
218 - 223 on conducting joint and separate trials, the trial court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
should apply a two-pronged test, namely, (i) whether
conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of the
accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a joint/separate trial
would cause judicial delay.
51.3. The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to
be determined at the beginning of the trial and not after the trial
based on the result of the trial. The Appellate Court may
determine the validity of the argument that there ought to have
been a separate/joint trial only based on whether the trial had
prejudiced the right of accused or the prosecutrix.
51.4. Since the provisions which engraft an exception use
the phrase ‘may’ with reference to conducting a joint trial, a
separate trial is usually not contrary to law even if a joint trial
could be conducted, unless proven to cause a miscarriage of
justice.
51.5. A conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set
aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint
or a separate trial. To set aside the order of conviction or
acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties were
prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, as the case
may be.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
13. In the present cases, there are two crimes committed at
around the same time by the same set of persons. Section 223(d)
empowers or provides for conduct of joint trials in case of persons
accused of different offences committed in the course of the same
transaction. In the cases on hand, the accused persons have been
charged with offences under Section 302 in respect of SC.No.27/2007
and Section 307 read with of course the other provisions of IPC in
S.C.No.28/2007. The same persons are accused of different offences
committed in the course of the same transaction. Therefore, the
Sessions Court could have done well to atleast conduct a joint trial for
the two sessions cases which would have resulted in the mishap that has
occurred in marking of documents and non marking of documents in the
cases on hand.
14. In K.Thoosimuthu @ Saravanan and others vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 MLJ (Crl) 589, a Division Bench of
this Court has pointed out that the failure on the part of the Sessions
Court to conduct a joint trial has resulted in serious illegalities at the
trial. There, it was a case of a double murder which took place within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
very short span of time. The Division Bench after examining the facts of
the two cases, found that a joint trial should have been conducted.
15. As pointed out by the Division Bench, most of the evidence is
common in both the sessions cases and the witnesses who have been
examined are also the same, excepting the fact that the attack resulted
in the death of the Sub Inspector Subramanian and fortunately, the Head
Constable Mr.Bose escaped with injuries. This resulted in the accused
being charged for different offences. We have no doubt in our mind that
both the offences are part of the same transaction. Of course, the
accused persons would suffer a certain amount of prejudice, if we are to
order re-trial, but a duty to ensure fair trial is cast upon this Court also.
Fair trial means a fair trial not only to the accused persons, but also to
the victims and the society at large. The accused persons have been
charged with very grave offences and the little prejudice that would be
caused to them cannot be a ground to avoid a joint trial.
16. After reviewing the authorities with reference to joint trial, the
Division Bench of this Court in K.Thoosimuthu's case, referred to a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Hussain vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), reported in AIR 2012 SC 3860, wherein, the Apex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
Court has observed as follows:-
''The appellate court hearing a criminal appeal from a
judgment of conviction has power to order the retrial of the
accused under Section 386 of the Code. That is clear from the bare
language of Section 386(b). Though such power exists, it should
not be exercised in a routine manner. A de novo trial or retrial of
the accused should be ordered by the appellate court in
exceptional and rare cases and only when in the opinion of the
appellate court such course becomes indispensable to avert failure
of justice. Surely this power cannot be used to allow the
prosecution to improve upon its case or fill up the lacuna. A retrial
is not the second trial; it is continuation of the same trial and same
prosecution. The guiding factor for retrial must always be demand
of justice. Obviously, the exercise of power of retrial under Section
386(b) of the Code, will depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case for which no straitjacket formula can be formulated but
the appeal court must closely keep in view that while protecting
the right of an accused to fair trial and due process, the people
who seek protection of law do not lose hope in legal system and
the interests of the society are not altogether overlooked.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
17. The Division Bench went on to observe as follows:-
''35. The appellate Court has been conferred with very
wide powers to order for a retrial in a criminal case. It is true
that the same can be done only in exceptional cases. This is one
such exceptional case, where this Court has to necessarily set
aside both the judgments and order for retrial. The trial that was
conducted before the Court below is vitiated by serious
illegalities on account of misconception of the nature of the
proceedings. The appellate Court cannot merely express its
helplessness and give the benefit to the accused persons. The
power has been given to the appellate Court only to exercise it
in appropriate cases. This Court is of the considered view that
this is a case, where the proceedings before the Court below is
not a mere irregularity but suffers from serious illegality.''
18. In the cases on hand, the conduct of separate trials had not
only resulted in documents being interchanged, but also vital documents
have not been produced. The complaint in S.C.No.28/2007 is the
foundation for the charge in S.C.No.27/2007. Unfortunately, the said
complaint has not been produced. The finger print reports have been
interchanged. These procedural irregularities, in our opinion, should not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
result in an undue advantage to the accused. If it results in undue
advantage to the accused, the trial cannot be said to be a fair trial. We
are, therefore, of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the
trial Court must be directed to conduct a joint trial of the two sessions
cases which would by and large cure technical defects in the trial. We
are conscious of the fact that the trial will be delayed, but we have no
other choice, but to direct a joint trial if we are to ensure a fair trial. The
prejudice caused to the accused could be minimized or mitigated by
directing the trial Court to enlarge them on bail. Since we are remitting
the matter for a joint trial, we are not expressing any opinion on the
merits of the matter. Whatever little discussion we have made on the
evidence is only to show as to how the failure on the part of the trial
Court in not conducting a joint trial, had affected the trial of the two
sessions cases. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the
judgments of the trial Court in both theses cases.
19. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals will stand allowed and the
judgments in S.C.Nos.27 and 28 of 2007 on the file of the Additional
District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, are set
aside and both the sessions cases will stand remitted to the trial Court
for a joint trial with a direction to the trial Court to conduct a joint trial of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
both the cases. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in
the year 2006 and the trial was concluded in the year 2020, we direct
the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the records from this Court. It is made clear that
the accused persons shall co-operate with the trial Court in concluding
the trial within the period fixed above. The accused persons are at
liberty to move the trial Court seeking bail and the trial Court will
consider the bail applications sympathetically in the light of the fact that
a re-trial has been directed by this Court. If the trial Court finds that the
appellants adopt dilatory tactics, it will be open to the trial Court to
ensure their presence by recalling the bail orders and remanding them to
custody as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh reported in AIR 2001 SC 1403.
20. The Criminal Appeals are disposed of as above.
(R.S.M., J.) (N.S.K., J.)
29.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
bala
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
1.The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Abiramam,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.352 and 355 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
bala
PRE-DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
CRL.A(MD)Nos.355 and 352 of 2020, 27 and
29 of 2021, 25, 153, 257 and 258 of 2022
DATED : 29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
