Madras High Court
Arumugam vs State Rep. By on 12 October, 2023
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
1. Arumugam
2. Kandhan
3. Surrendar
4. Suga @ Sudhagar
5. Thennarasu ... Petitioners in Crl.MP.No.7177 of 2023
1. Osaimani
2. Saranraj
3. Stalin
4. Muthukumar
... Petitioners in Crl.MP.No.7177 of 2023
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore Port Police Station,
Cuddalore.
(Crime No.36/2018.) ... Respondent in both the petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners in S.C.No.31 of 2019 on
the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by
a judgment dated 28.04.2023 and enlarge the petitioners on bail, pending
disposal of the Criminal Appeal Nos.560 and 563 of 2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
for M/s.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)
These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to suspend
the sentence imposed on the petitioners by the I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.31 of 2019, by judgment dated
28.04.2023, and enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the
above Criminal Appeals.
2.The learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in
S.C.No.31 of 2019, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
Petitioners Offence for Sentence
(accused) in which
Crl.Mp.No. convicted
7177 of 2023
1st petitioner Sec.148 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine.
Sec.294 (b) IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 months and no fine.
Sec.342 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 1 year and no fine.
Sec.302 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
2nd petitioner Sec.148 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine.
Sec.342 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 1 year and no fine.
Sec.302 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
3rd petitioner Sec.148 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine.
Sec.342 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 1 year and no fine.
Sec.324 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine.
Sec.302 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
Sec.307 IPC Acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
Petitioners Offence for Sentence
(accused) in which
Crl.Mp.No. convicted
7177 of 2023
4th petitioner Sec.148 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine.
Sec.302 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
5th petitioner Sec.148 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine.
Sec.302 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
Petitioners Offence for Sentence
(accused) in which
Crl.Mp.No. convicted
7200 of 2023
1st petitioner Sec.148 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.324 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.302 r/w.149 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
2nd petitioner Sec.148 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.324 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
Petitioners Offence for Sentence
(accused) in which
Crl.Mp.No. convicted
7200 of 2023
Sec.302 r/w.149 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
3rd petitioner Sec.148 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.324 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.307 Acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
Sec.302 r/w.149 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
4th petitioner Sec.148 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.325 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 3 years and no fine imposed.
Sec.302 r/w.149 Convicted and sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and Rs.5000 fine in default
Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.
3.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioners, who
are arrayed as A1, A2, A3, A7, A13, A4, A6, A15 and A20, have filed the
above Criminal Appeals and they seek suspension of sentence and bail in
the present miscellaneous petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
4.Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
M/s.A.S.Aswin Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for
the respondent/State.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a conflict among the
Villagers of Devanampattinam and Sonangkuppam Villages with regard to
usage of banned fishing net during the annual fishing ban period. Due to the
said enmity, on 15.05.2018, at about 6.00 a.m., there was a quarrel among
the fisherman of these two Villages when they were fishing in sea zone.
Thereafter, tension prevailed in the two Villages. Subsequently, on the same
day at about 9.00 a.m., having grudge over the quarrel held in the sea zone
among the two Villagers, the accused persons, who belonged to
Devanampattinam Village armed with deadly weapons, unlawfully
assembled at Sonangkuppam near Puyal Koondu to commit rioting and
murder of the Villagers of Sonangkuppam. On seeing the deceased
Panchanathan, the first accused/Arumugam instigated the mob to kill the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
deceased and as a result of which, the deceased was attacked by the accused
with deadly weapons, which caused his death.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners pointed out serious
infirmities in the prosecution case, which are as follows:
a) The eyewitness and the injured witness viz., PW1,
PW3 and PW8 had deposed before the Trial Court that they
were all taken to the Hospital by ambulance and the police
were present at the scene of occurrence when they were taken
in the ambulance. The Doctor, who made entires in the
Accident Register PW18, on the contrary had recorded that all
the injured witness were bought by Police Jeep. Both the
versions confirmed the presence of the police, much prior to
the registration of the FIR.
b) PW18 recorded in the Accident Register that the
witnesses and the person who brought the deceased had stated
that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons, whereas in
the FIR, which was registered 2 hours later at 12.30 p.m. the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
names of the accused with the fathers names were mentioned.
According to the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the
FIR, the said information was furnished by the PW1, and
therefore, the accused were falsely implicated after
deliberation.
c) The evidence of P.W.8 rules out the presence of P.W.1
as witness the occurrence. In his deposition P.W.8 had stated
that on the instruction of the villagers, P.W.1 had lodged the
complaint and that if P.W.1 had been present in the occurrence,
he would have also been killed.
d) The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the
FIR, which was marked as Ex.D1 by PW31, the Inspector of
Police of Devanampattinam Police Station. The said PW31, had
registered an FIR on the same day (i.e.,) 15.05.2018 against 30
persons belonging to Devanampattinam Village stating that
they had assembled to go Sonangkuppam Village with arms to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
attack the Villagers in the said Village; that when the
Sub Inspector of Police attempted to prevent the accused
persons therein, he was threatened and thereafter the Villagers
of Devanampattinam left for Sonangkuppam Village.
The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the
30 accused named in the said FIR could have been the persons
involved in the murder at Devanampattinam Village. However
none of the accused in the case registered by the Sub Inspector
of Police of Devanampattinam Village are named in the FIR
relating to the murder case. However 20 persons named in the
FIR relating to the murder case and who faced trial are different
persons who have been falsely implicated.
(e) The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that
the statements of all the witness said to be recorded during the
investigation on 16.05.2018 were sent to the Magistrate only
on 05.10.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
(f) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
even with regard to the manner in which the complaint was
lodged before the Sub Inspector of Police, there is a
contradiction inasmuch as PW1 would state that he went to
the Police Station at 4.30 p.m. to lodge the complaint,
whereas the Sub Inspector of Police stated that he went to
the Hospital to record the statement of PW1.
(g) The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that while
answering the submissions of the defence that the deceased
was not taken by P.W.1 to the Hospital, the learned Judge
observed that the Doctor who made entires in the Accident
Register had by mistake noted the name of
Balachandher/Kumaran as persons who brought the
deceased instead of Painthamizhkumaran. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted that such an observation reflects
an erroneous appreciation of the evidence on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
(h). The learned Senior Counsel submitted that since
the FIR has been fabricated, the prosecution case is highly
doubtful and submitted that the Judgment of the Trial Court
is not based on any acceptable evidence and prayed for
suspension of sentence.
7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who vehemently
opposed for grant of the relief of suspension of sentence to the petitioners
herein as there are specific overt act against the petitioners herein.
Further, the motive for committing the crime is also proved by the
prosecution and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. This Court has already granted suspension of sentence for
similarly placed accused in Crl.Mp.No.6731 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.543 of
2023. We find that the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is supported by the evidence on record and
hence, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
stand allowed. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
petitioners, is suspended and they are granted bail on the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with
two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like
sum to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore.
(ii)The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in
the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar
card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity; and
(iii)The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on the first working
day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the Appeal and if
they are not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, they shall
make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and
shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of
their absence, as directed by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
9.Accordingly, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are ordered.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (S.M., J.)
12.10.2023
pvs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1. I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore
2. The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore Port Police Station,
Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
pvs
Crl.M.P.Nos.7177 and 7200 of 2023
in Crl.A.No.560 and 563 of 2023
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
