Madras High Court
Karthik vs State Of Kerala Reported In (1980) 4 Scc ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.A.No.545 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.01.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.545 of 2020
Karthik ... Appellant/A1
v.
State represented by
Inspector of Police
Annamalai Nagar,
Killai Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.268 of 2016) ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, against the conviction of the appellant and sentence in S.C.
No.127 of 2017 dated 16.12.2020, on the file of the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and set aside the conviction and
sentence imposed in judgment dated 16.12.2020 and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Ms.Sindhuja
for Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.545 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.1, challenging the
conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 16.12.2020
in S.C.No.127 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.
2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/A1 had illegal
intimacy with the wife of PW10; that PW1 and PW3 were closely related to
PW10; that whenever the appellant visited the village of PW1 and PW3, the
deceased/father of PW1 and other witnesses, questioned the accused; that
enraged by the said conduct, the appellant and the other accused decided to
do away with the deceased; that on 24.09.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., when the
deceased and PW3 were talking in a public place, the appellant along with
the other accused came in a Tata Indica car and attacked the deceased with
iron rods and wooden logs; that PW3 sustained grievous injuries and the
deceased died at the scene of the occurrence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) It is also the case of the prosecution that PW1/son of the deceased
was an eyewitness; that besides PW1 and PW3, PW1's friends viz., PW4
and PW5, were also eyewitnesses; that the witnesses took the deceased to
the hospital, and PW3 also got himself admitted to the hospital; that PW1
lodged a complaint on 25.09.2016, which was registered by PW15, the Sub
Inspector of Police, at 5.00 a.m., in Crime No.268 of 2016 for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, and 302 of the IPC against the
appellant and five other accused. The complaint was marked as Ex.P1, and
the printed FIR was marked as Ex.P7.
(iii) Thereafter, on receipt of the FIR, PW20 took up the investigation
and went to the scene of the occurrence on 25.09.2016 at about 6.00 a.m.,
and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P3] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P15];
he seized two wooden logs measuring 83cms and 90cms, respectively
[M.O.2] and samples of bloodstained earth and earth without bloodstain
under Ex.P5-Seizure Mahazar; thereafter, he conducted an inquest in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
presence of panchayatars and prepared the Inquest report [Ex.P16]; he sent
the dead body of the deceased for a postmortem through PW14; PW11
conducted a postmortem and issued postmortem certificate [Ex.P6].
(iv) On the same day, PW20 examined the other witnesses and, at
about 1.30 p.m., arrested all the accused i.e., A1 to A6 and on the
admissible portion of the confession made by A1, a Tata Indica car bearing
Regn.No.TN04 T 7171 was seized along with an iron rod measuring 79 cms
from the appellant, and the other M.O.'s/weapons were seized on the
confession of the other accused. After examination of all other witnesses, he
filed a final report on 29.12.2016 against all the accused for the offence
under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326, 307 and 302 r/w 149 of
the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram.
(v) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of
Session in S.C.No.127 of 2017 and was made over to the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, for trial. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
trial Court framed charges against the accused, and when questioned, the
accused pleaded 'not guilty'. The case against A2-Kathirvel was tried
separately in S.C.No.52 of 2019.
(vi) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked 17 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P17, and marked 7
Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7. When the accused were questioned,
u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them,
they denied the same. The accused did not examine any witnesses or mark
any documents.
(vii) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt
and held the appellant/A1 guilty of offence under Sections 294(b), 307 and
302 of the IPC. However, the trial Court acquitted the other accused, viz.,
A3, A4, A5, and A6. The appellant herein/A1 was convicted and sentenced
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Offence under Section Sentence imposed
294 (b) IPC To pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo SI for
one week.
307 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three
months
302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months
Hence, A1 has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and
sentence.
3. Heard, Ms. Sindhuja, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/A1, and Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/state. This Court also perused all
the materials available on record.
4. (i) Ms.Sindhuja, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the FIR is fabricated and was lodged belatedly; that though the
occurrence took place at 8.00 p.m., on 24.09.2016, the complaint was
lodged only on 25.09.2016 at 5.00am; that the witnesses have stated that the
police had come to the scene of the occurrence and had examined all the
witnesses much before a complaint was lodged; that therefore, the complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was lodged after deliberation and it cannot be treated as a first information;
that the other accused were acquitted by the trial court on the
ground that the witnesses have not clearly spelt out the overt acts; and that
the trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution case relating to conspiracy.
(ii) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the version of
witnesses therefore cannot be believed, and the same reason assigned by the
trial Court for disbelieving their version as against A3 to A6 would be
applicable to the appellant/A1 as well, and prayed for acquittal of the
appellant.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that
in the instant case, the trial Court found that there was no evidence against
the other accused and rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence as all
the witnesses have uniformly stated that the appellant/A1 had the motive
and had caused the fatal blow on the deceased and therefore prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have
perused all the relevant records.
7. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at 8.00 p.m., on
24.09.2016. PW1 an eyewitness, and the son of the deceased had made a
complaint at 5.00 a.m., on 25.09.2016. In the complaint, he has made
allegations against six accused, alleging that all of them were armed with
iron rods and wooden logs and that they attacked the deceased and PW3.
The trial Court acquitted A3 to A6. The case against A2 was split up and he
was tried separately in S.C.No.52 of 2019. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that A2 was also acquitted by the trial Court vide
judgment dated 16.12.2020. We find that in the complaint, no specific
overt act is attributed to any of the accused. However, the witnesses, during
their deposition in Court, made improvements, alleging specific overt acts
against each of the accused. The judgment of acquittal as against the other
accused has not been challenged by the prosecution. If the witnesses cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be believed as regards the role of the other accused, their version with regard
to the role of A1 also has to be discarded. However, we propose to analyse
their evidence independent of the fact that the prosecution had not
challenged the finding of the trial Court acquitting A2 to A6.
8. PW5, one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, stated in the cross-
examination that the police came to the hospital on the same night after the
occurrence, and he was examined by the police. This would show that the
police came to know of the occurrence even before the FIR was lodged, and
they had commenced the investigation in the hospital on the same night after
the occurrence.
9. PW3, who is an injured eyewitness, stated that A1 first attacked
him with an iron rod, and thereafter A2 and A4 attacked with iron rod; and
that he fainted after the attack, and thereafter he saw the other accused
attacking the accused. His evidence is self contradictory. Having stated that
he had fainted after the attack made on him, his version that he saw the
deceased being attacked thereafter is improbable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. PW1 also confirms that all the accused first attacked PW3, and he
fainted, and when the deceased went to prevent the attack on PW3, he was
attacked. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“rk;gtk; 2 ,lj;jpy; ele;jJ/ Kjy; rk;gtk;
mz;zhrpiy mUfpy; ele;jJ/ mg;nghJ jz;lghdpia
moj;jhu;fs;. mg;nghJ vd; mg;gh tpsf;f nghdhu;.
mg;nghJ vd; mg;ghita[k; moj;jhu;fs;/ vjphpfs; 6 ngUk;
Kjypy; jz;lghdpia moj;jhu;fs;/ jz;lghdp
ka';fptpl;lhu;/ mij ghu;j;J vd; mg;gh mof;fhjPu;fs; vd
vd; mg;gh nghd nghJ vd; mg;ghita[k; xU mo
moj;jhu;fs;. mg;nghJ vd; mg;gh typ jh';f Koahky;
vk;/$p/Mu; rpiy mUnf te;jhu;/ mg;nghJk; 6 vjhpfs;
te;J moj;jhu;fs;/ vd; mg;ghtpw;F jiyapy; mogl;l nghJ
uj;jk; tHpe;jJ/”
11. The above evidence further suggests that the occurrence took
place in two places. First, the attack on PW3, and thereafter, the attack on
the deceased at a different place. The first attack on PW3 was near an
“Anna statue” which was 30 feet away from an “MGR statue”, where the
second occurrence took place. Therefore, PW3's version that the accused
attacked the deceased also cannot be believed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. PW1 is closely related to the deceased. PW4 and PW5 are close
friends of PW1. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that they had
taken efforts to prevent the alleged attack on PW3 and the deceased, which
is said to have taken place in two different places. Further, we find that, as
stated earlier, the police were present at the hospital even before the FIR was
lodged. The FIR was lodged at 5.00 a.m., the next morning. No
explanation has been offered by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the
complaint except for a vague attempt made by PW1 that he was present in
the hospital and therefore could not go to the police station. It is a matter of
common sense that when the deceased and PW3 were brought to the
hospital, the hospital authorities would have informed the police, which is
also confirmed by the evidence of PW5. Therefore, the defence case that the
FIR came into existence long after the occurrence after much deliberation is
probable.
13. It is well settled that if the FIR is held to be fabricated, the entire
fabric of the prosecution case would collapse. This Court is reminded of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard in Marudanal
Augusti vs State Of Kerala reported in (1980) 4 SCC 425 wherein, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact
that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse
if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence
long after the occurrence and any number of witness could
be added without there being anything to check the
authenticity of their evidence.”
14. That apart, we also find that though the mahazar relating to the
seizure of an iron rod [Ex.P9] on A1's confession shows that it was blood
stained, the report of the expert Ex.P12 issued by PW19, the Assistant
Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, shows that no bloodstains were
found in any of the iron rods sent for analysis. This has also not been
explained by the prosecution.
15. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 attacked the
deceased with an iron rod [M.O.1] on the head. However, the postmortem of
the deceased reveals that he sustained three external injuries, viz.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) cut injury (R) side scalp (R) parietal region 4x2x bone depth;
(ii) contusions (R) shoulder 3 x 2 cm; and
(iii) swelling (R) Shoulder.
The postmortem Doctor PW11, though in the chief examination, stated that
the Injury No.(i) i.e., the head injury, could have been caused by the
weapons like M.Os.1 and 2, however in the cross-examination, she stated
that the head injury is a cut injury and therefore it could not have been
caused by M.O.1 or M.O.2. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLk; r/bgh/1 ,Uk;g[ fk;gpfs; kw;Wk;
r/bgh/2 cUl;Lfl;ilfshy; jhf;fg;gLk; nghJ
btl;Lf;fhak; Vw;gl tha;gg
; [ ,y;iy/”
There is inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical
evidence. This has also not been explained by the prosecution.
16. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, we are of the
view that it is highly unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of PW1, PW3,
PW4, and PW5 to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. As stated earlier,
the very same witnesses were disbelieved by the trial Court as regards the
involvement of other accused. The rest of the witnesses are either scientific
witnesses or witnesses who assisted the investigating officer. PW10, who is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the husband of Lakshmi, with whom A1 is stated to have had illicit
intimacy, admits that he has no personal knowledge about the occurrence.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and
sentence cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant in S.C. No.127 of 2017 dated
16.12.2020, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge No.II, Chidambaram, are set aside. The appellant/A1 is acquitted of
all the charges and is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is
required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid
by the appellant shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand
discharged.
(M.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
01.02.2024
Index : yes/no
Neutral citation : yes/no
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH,J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ars
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge No.II,
Chidambaram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Annamalai Nagar,
Killai Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
Pre-delivery Judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
