Madras High Court
Mani @ Pichai Mani vs The State Represented By on 26 October, 2022
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
Mani @ Pichai Mani ... Appellant / Sole Accused
/Vs./
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Medical College Police Station,
Thanjavur.
(Crime No.163 of 2016) ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal - filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Sessions judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur in S.C.No.07 of 2017
dated 29.11.2019 and acquit the appellant / sole accused of the charge.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Somasundaram
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order passed by
the learned Mahila Court (FTC), Tanjore in S.C.No.7 of 2017, dated
29.11.2019, convicting and sentencing the appellant in the following
manner:
S.No. Rank of the Accused Offence for which Sentence
convicted
1. Sole Accused Section 394 IPC Life Imprisonment
and Fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in
default to undergo
One Year Simple
Imprisonment.
Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment
and Fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in
default to undergo
One Year Simple
Imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2016, PW1 was
travelling along with his wife in a two-wheeler and were going to attend a
function and at about 09.15 p.m., when the two-wheeler was going near a
college hostel, the accused person followed the vehicle driven by PW1 in
his two-wheeler and all of a sudden, grabbed the gold chain from the neck
of the deceased and one portion of the chain came into the hands of the
accused person and the deceased fell down from the two-wheeler and
sustained head injuries.
3. Since blood was oozing out of the nose and mouth of the deceased,
she was immediately rushed to a private hospital at about 09.30 p.m., and
was treated by the Doctor, PW13 through whom, the accident register was
marked as Ex.P11. The deceased was sent for further treatment to the
Tanjore Medical College Hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries
sustained by her.
4. PW1 went to the police station and gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to
the Inspector of Police and an FIR (Ex.P17) was registered in Crime No.163
of 2016. The investigation was taken up by PW19 and on completion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
investigation, a final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Tanjore. The copies were served on the accused person
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and the case was committed to the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tanjore, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
The case was made over to the Court below and the Court below framed
charges against the accused person for the offences under Sections 302 and
394 of IPC.
5. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW19 and marked Exs.P1 to
P21 and identified and marked MO1 to MO5. The Court below questioned
the accused person under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting
incriminating materials collected during trial and the same was denied as
false.
6. The Court below, on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to a
conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case beyond reasonable
doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused person in the manner stated
supra. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Appeal has been filed before
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
7. Heard Mr.E.Somasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent.
8. PW1 is the husband of the deceased and he was the one, who had
driven the vehicle and he speaks about the incident. Even though the
prosecution has attempted to show PW2 and PW3, who are the son and the
son-in-law of the deceased as eye-witnesses, it is clear from the evidence of
PW1 that these two persons had come to the scene of crime only after the
incident and at that point of time, the accused was not present.
9. In view of the above, it must be seen if the accused has been
properly identified in this case. Admittedly, PW1 is not known to the
accused person or has seen him before the incident. The prosecution did not
think it fit to conduct a test identification parade in this case. On carefully
going through the evidence of PW1, it is seen that PW1 has not specifically
identified the accused person even in the dock.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
10. The prosecution has tried to cover up this serious lacuna by
marking MO1 to MO3 through PW1. MO2 is said to be a Voter ID of the
accused, which is alleged to have fallen down in the scene of crime along
with his mobile phone marked as MO1. The prosecution has attempted to
project the case as if MO1 and MO2 were recovered from PW1 and it was
submitted to the Court through Form-91.
11. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the claim made by the
prosecution, this Court went through the original records and it is found that
MO1 & MO2 is said to have been collected from PW1 on 23.05.2016 and it
was sent to the Court only on 27.05.2016. The Judicial Magistrate has
returned back Form-91 on 31.05.2016 with an endorsement that MO1 &
MO2 was not produced along with the Form. Thereafter, the Form was
once again represented on 14.06.2016 and it was returned for the very same
reason and once again it was represented on 23.06.2016. If really MO1 &
MO2 was secured from PW1, there was no reason as to why there was
somuch of delay in producing the same before the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
12. There is yet another reason as to why the recovery of MO1 &
MO2 from PW1 becomes highly doubtful. The accused was arrested on
26.05.2016 at about 09.30 p.m, when he was taking treatment at
Government Hospital, Tanjore. The mobile phone and the voter id came
into existence only after the arrest of the accused ie., on 27.05.2016. Hence,
the very recovery of MO1 and MO2 becomes highly doubtful and it clearly
gives an impression that the prosecution has attempted to bring in materials
only for the sake of identifying the accused person at a later point of time.
These circumstances clearly make the very identity of the accused person
very doubtful.
13. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 also does not help the case of the
prosecution, since their presence in the scene of occurrence has been
completely ruled out through the evidence of PW1. Therefore, their
evidence also does not help the prosecution in establishing the identity of
the accused person.
14. Insofar as the admission of the deceased in the hospital, PW1
claims that he only admitted the deceased. However, PW3 states that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
only admitted the deceased in the hospital. The evidence of PW13, Doctor
shows that the deceased was brought by PW3. It is therefore clear that there
is a discrepancy in the manner in which the deceased is said to have been
admitted in the hospital.
15. There is yet another crucial factor, for which there is no
explanation from the prosecution. Admittedly, PW1 and the deceased were
travelling together in a two-wheeler on the date of occurrence. Even this
two-wheeler has not been recovered by the respondent police and by
examining PW14 to PW16, the two-wheeler belonging to the accused was
sought to be established and it was also identified as MO5.
16. PW8, PW11 and PW17 were examined in this case in order to
establish that the accused person was driving the vehicle in a high speed and
was attempting to escape and in the said process, he fell down and sustained
injuries and he was admitted in the hospital. At that point of time, he
confessed to the commission of crime and MO4 is said to have been
recovered when the accused was taking treatment in the hospital through
Exs.P4 and P5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
17. The evidence of PW8, PW11 and PW17 is not in anyway helping
the prosecution in fixing the appellant as the accused person in this case.
The so-called confession made by the accused to these police officers is
inadmissible in evidence. The accident register marked as Ex.P19 through
PW19 only establishes the injuries sustained by the accused person and the
treatment given to him.
18. In the present case, the prosecution miserably failed to establish
the identity of the accused person. There is no clinching evidence to show
that the appellant was involved in the crime and he was not even properly
identified in the Court by PW1. In view of the same, the benefit of doubt
has to go in favour of the appellant and he has to be acquitted from all
charges.
19. In the result,
(i) This Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
(ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant, vide judgment and order, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
29.11.2019, passed by the Mahila Court (FTC),
Tanjore in S.C.No.7 of 2017, is set aside and the
appellant is acquitted from all charges.
(iii) The appellant is directed to be released from
the jail forthwith, unless his presence is required
in any other case.
(iv) Fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be
refunded.
(v) Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant
and the sureties shall stand terminated.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
26.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
To:
1.The Sessions judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thanjavur.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Trichy.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Medical College Police Station,
Thanjavur.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
sm
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.8 of 2021
Dated
26.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
