Madras High Court
Manjula vs State Rep.By on 1 March, 2023
1 Crl.A.No.69 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.No.69 of 2015
1.Manjula
2.Munusamy
3.Amul @ Lakshmi
4.Pichaiammal
5.Deva @ Devaraj .. Appellants/Accused
.vs.
State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police
C-3 Arani P.S.
Crime No.19/2010. …. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 and 382 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records pertaining to
S.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the Mahila Court, Fast Track, Thiruvallur
and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded
therein on 07.01.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 Crl.A.No.69 of 2015
For Appellants Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan
For Respondent Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgement and
Order passed by the Mahila Fast Track Court at Thiruvallur in S.C.No.50
of 2012, dated 07/01/2015, convicting and sentencing the appellants in
the following manner:
Sl. Rank of the Offence for Sentence
No. Accused which convicted
1. A1,A2, A3 and A5 304 (ii) IPC Three years simple imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and
in default to undergo three
months simple imprisonment.
2. A4 304(ii) IPC Si to undergo 1 ½ years simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/- and in default to
undergo go three months
simple imprisonment.
2.The case of prosecution is that on 09/01/2010 at about 4.30 pm,
when the son of the deceased Geetha (PW-3) was coming back from a
shop, A4 intercepted him and started a fight. On hearing the shouts of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PW-3, the deceased Geetha and her daughter (PW-2) intervened. At that
point of time, A1 to A5 attacked the deceased – A1 pulled the hair of the
deceased and pushed her down and attacked her with wooden log in her
abdomen and also kicked her, A2 to A4 also pulled the hair of the
deceased and pushed her down, A3 attacked the deceased with a wooden
log in her chest and A5 used a blade and caused a cut injury in the left
hand of the deceased. As a result of this attack, the deceased Geetha
sustained serious injuries and she was rushed to the Government Hospital
for treatment by PW-1, who is the husband of the deceased. The
deceased took treatment, but however succumbed to the injuries on
14/01/2010 at about 11.15 pm.
3.PW-1 gave a complaint (Ex.P-1) on 09/01/2010 at about 10.00
p.m., and based on the same, PW-12 registered an FIR (Ex.P-5) in Crime
No.19 of 2010 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and
506 (ii) IPC.
4.PW-12 took up the investigation and went to the scene of
occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch
marked as Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 respectively. He also recorded the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statements of the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. Since the
deceased died subsequently on 14/01/2010, the investigation was taken
over by PW-17. In the meantime, PW-13 effected the arrest of A-4 on
24/01/2010 at about 11.00 pm., and recorded her confession. PW-14
recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and he also got the news
that the deceased died on 14/01/2010 at about 11.45 pm.
5.PW-17, who took over the investigation, filed an alteration
report marked as Ex.P-10 and he added the offence under Section 302
IPC. He also recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161(3)
Cr.P.C. PW-17 conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased
on 15/01/2010 between 9.30 am., to 11.00 am., at the Government
Hospital, Chennai in the presence of panchayatdars. He prepared the
Inquest Report which was marked as Ex.P-19. Subsequently, the other
accused persons were arrested on 16/01/2010 and 19/01/2010. Based on
their confession, MO.1 to MO.3 were recovered under Ex.P-11-
Magazar. The accused persons were remanded to judicial custody. The
statement of the attestors to the arrest were also recorded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.PW-17 made a requisition for the post-mortem of the deceased
Geetha and the post-mortem was conducted by PW-15 and the
Post-mortem Certificate was marked as Ex.P-8. The following injuries
were recorded in the Post-mortem Certificate:
Appearances found at the post-mortem of a moderately
nourished female dead body. ( interrupted sick).
Identification:
1. A linear surgically sutured wound of length 10cm, seen in
the outer aspect of lower 1/3rd of Left forearm. On removal of
sutures, edges are clean cut and regular.
2.A contusion of size 12cm x 4cm x 1cm in the outer aspect of
(R) hand extending to the outer aspect of lower 1/3rd of (R)
forearm. On dissection – underlying muscles and tissues
crushed with bleeding into surrounding tissues.
II.On Opening of the Head:- Scalp contused in the under
surface over the occipital area of size 2cmx1cmx0.5cm. Bones
of the -- -- and membranes found to be intact.
Brain: -Diffuse cerebral edema seen surface vessels are full
and tortons cut section congested. Base:- Intact.
III. On opening of Thorax:- Rig case – Intact.
Heart :– appears normal in size. Coronaries values and great.
Vessels – NAD.
Cut Section :- Few CC of blood seen in the chambers. Both
lungs appear normal in size. Cut section:congested.
IV. On opening of the abdomen :- About 750 ml of straw
coloured clear fluid seen in the cavity. Loops of Small
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Intestine and Large Intestine on the (L) side – descending
colon found to be contused. Cut section :- congested.
Stomach:- 100 ml of brownish red fluid seen. No odour.
Cut section :- congested.
Liver and spleen : - Appear normal cut section - congested.
(R) Kidney – Normal in size. (L) Kidney contused.
Cut section-congested
Uterus : 6cmx4cmx1.5cm size Cut Section:- Cavity empty.
Bladder – empty.
Posterior abdominal wall – (L) side shows a contusion of
size 15cmx8cmx1.5cm (Renal area)
V.Hyoid Bone, pelvis and spinal column–Intact.Viscera – sent.
The deceased would appear to have died of due to effects of
multiple injuries sustained.
7.The clothes that were worn by the deceased Geetha was also
recovered and the same was marked as MO.4 to MO.6. All the material
objects were sent for chemical analysis and the reports were marked as
Exs.P17 and P.18. Ultimately on completion of the investigation, a final
report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, served the copies to the accused persons under
Section 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C
and it was made over to the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The Trial Court framed the following charges:
Rank of the Accused Charges framed
A1 to A4 Section 302 IPC
A5 Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC
9.The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-17 and marked Exs.P-1
to P-19 and identified and marked MO.1 to MO.6. Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3,
was also marked on the side of the defense while cross examining
PW-12. The incriminating evidence that was gathered during the course
of trial was put to the accused persons when they were questioned under
Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as false.
10.The Court below on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has
come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the offense under
Section 304 (ii) IPC., against the accused persons and accordingly,
sentenced them in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the
Criminal appeal has filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.Heard Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) appearing
for the respondent.
12.The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, who are the husband, daughter
and son of deceased, projects the case as if, PW 3 was waylaid by A4 and
thereafter, he was attacked and when the deceased intervened, she was
also attacked by the accused persons. The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5
only speaks about what they saw after the incident and they were not eye
witnesses to the case. The FIR was registered on 09/01/2010 at about
10.00 pm. However, this FIR had reached the Court only on 16/01/2010
at about 07.10 pm. This Court became curious as to why it took 7 days
for the FIR to reach the Court. In the meantime, the deceased died on
14/01/2010 at 11.15 pm. The alteration report was prepared by PW-17 on
15/01/2010. Hence, the original FIR which was registered on 09/01/2010
had reached the Court much after the alteration report was filed by
PW-17.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.This Court therefore wanted to dig deeper into the evidence and
to the shock of this Court, it is found that the prosecution has suppressed
the very genesis of the case.
14.It is evident from the deposition of PW-16 that the deceased
was brought by PW-1 on 09/01/2010, to the Ponneri Govenment Hospital
at about 8.00 pm. It will be more relevant to extract what PW-16 has
stated in the evidence hereunder:
ehd; jpkH;ehL muR kUj;Jtj;Jiwapy; cjtp
kUj;Jtuhf gzpg[hpe;J j;wnghJ tpUg;g Xa;t[ bgw;Ws;nsd;/
9/1/2010 md;W ehd; bghd;ndhp muR kUj;Jtkidapy;
gzpapy; ,Ue;jnghJ ,ut[ 8 kzpf;F fPjh vd;w Rkhh; 36
taJs;s bgz;iz mtuJ fzth; utp rpfpr;irf;F
miHj;Jtejhh;/ fPjh jdf;F bjhpe;j ,uz;L egh;fshy;
md;W khiy 6 kzpf;F mUthshy; jhf;fg;gl;;ljhf
Twpdhh;/
15.Ex.P-9 was marked through PW-16 and this is the accident
register where it has been specifically stated that two known persons had
attacked the deceased with aruaval and the injuries have also been noted.
It is clear from this evidence that the deceased was very much conscious
and was able to explain about the attack to PW-16.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.If PW-16 had been informed about the attack as early as on
09/01/2010, it really defies common sense as to why no information was
passed on to the police. Admittedly, the treatment was given in the
Government Hospital and once the accident register is prepared, the
information automatically goes to the police. The prosecution is
completely silent in this regard.
17.The deceased ultimately died only on 14/01/2010 and till then
nobody had recorded the statement of the deceased. It is at this juncture,
the evidence of PW-12 becomes very relevant. PW-12 was the police,
who had registered the FIR and commenced the investigation purportedly
on 09/01/2010. During the cross examination, it came to light that all the
documents that were prepared by PW-12 was only after 14/01/2010
when the deceased died. In fact, PW-12 openly admitted about this in his
evidence. Hence, the answer as to why the FIR reached the Court only on
16/01/2010, becomes clearer since the police machinery had really
started acting only from 14/01/2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 regarding the incident is totally
unreliable in the light of the evidence of PW-16. The evidence of PW-12
shows that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case and an
attempt has been made to build up a case after 14/01/2010. If really the
FIR was registered on 09/01/2010 and the deceased was alive at that
point time, the first step that should have been taken by the prosecution is
to record the statement of the deceased, who died only on 14.01.2010. It
is apparent from the evidence of PW-16 that the deceased was very much
conscious and the injuries that were noted by PW-16 was not in any vital
organs and those were cut injuries sustained by the deceased from two
known persons. If that is the earliest version that is available, it is
shocking that five persons have been made as accused and evidence is
given against them by PW-1 to PW-3, who are all interested witnesses.
The falsity of the investigation in this case is apparent from the rough
sketch marked as Ex.P.6 and which was prepared on 09/01/2010, where
there is a mention about the offence under Section 302 IPC. The
alteration report itself was only prepared on 15/01/2010 after the
deceased died on 14/01/2010 and it is impossible that the offence under
Section 302 IPC came to be mentioned as early as on 09/01/2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.There is yet another grave doubt in the case of the prosecution.
According to the case of prosecution, the deceased was attacked with
wooden log and blade. However, the nature of injury sustained by the
deceased cannot be caused by these weapons and those were clear cut
injuries caused by aruval as was stated by PW-16. Hence, there is
discrepancy even in the weapon that was used and the number of
persons, who were involved in the crime.
20.In the considered view of this Court, the Trial Court,
completely failed to take note of these vital discrepancies which makes
the entire case of the prosecution unbelievable and the evidence of PW-1
to PW-3 unreliable.
21.In the light of the above discussion, this Court has absolutely
no hesitation to interfere with the Judgment and Order passed by the
Mahila Fast Track Court at Thiruvallur in S.C.No.50 of 2012, dated
07/01/2015 and the same is hereby set aside. It was bought to the notice
of this Court that A4 died during the pendency of this appeal and hence,
this appeal gets abated insofar as A4 is concerned under Section 394
Cr.PC. A1 to A3 and A5 are acquitted from all charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. A1 to A3 and A5
were enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 04.02.2015 vide
MP.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.69 of 2015. Since they are acquitted form
all charges, the bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled and
fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded.
01.03.2023
KP
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Judgment :Yes/No
To
1.Mahila Court, Fast Track,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Inspector of Police
C-3 Arani P.S.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
kp
Crl.A.No.69 of 2015
01.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
