Madras High Court
Mani vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 19 September, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
Crl.A.No.20 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 05.09.2024
Pronounced on 19.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.A.No.20 of 2019
1. Mani
2. Kannan -- Appellants/Accused 1 and 2
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police
Karipatty Police station,
Same District,
Salem District
(Crime No.309 of 2014) .... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 20.11.2018 in
S.C.No.30 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Salem.
For appellants : Mr.B.Vasudevan
For respondent : Mr.A.Gokula Krishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.20 of 2019
*****
JUDGMENT
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.,
The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the
appellants/Accused 1 and 2 against the order of conviction dated
21.12.2018 passed in Sessions case No.30 of 2016 by the I Additional
District Court, Salem.
2. Originally, there were four accused, but during the pendency of
the trial, the 3rd accused, Senthil Kumar, died. Hence, the charge
framed against him got abated. In respect of Murugan(A4), the trial
Court has found him not guilty and acquitted him from all the charges.
Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred by accused 1 and 2 against
the conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C, imposing a
punishment of life imprisonment.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused 1 and 2 are brothers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The deceased, Nallathambi is the maternal uncle of the appellants. There
was a property dispute between the accused family and the deceased.
Since the accused had intimidated the deceased's adopted son, qua P.W7
Dinesh, the deceased gave a police complaint against the accused. The
deceased and P.W1, Srinivasa Gounder, waited at the Karmapuram
Police Station for the arrival of the accused for enquiry. Since the
accused did not turn up for enquiry, P.W1, Srinivasa Gounder and
deceased returned to village in a two wheeler driven by P.W1.
4. While they were proceeding to their village, the appellants,
along with his two friends, waylaid them and indiscriminately stabbed
the deceased by knife, and the deceased succumbed to the stab injury.
Further, the accused also intimidated P.W1. Immediately, thereafter,
P.W1 gave a police complaint before the Karmapuram Police Station at
about 5.30 hours, and the same was received by P.W11-Manivel who
registered an F.I.R at about 21.15 hours in Crime No.309 of 2014. On
registration of the F.I.R, he forwarded the same to the Jurisdictional
Magistrate as well as to the Investigating Officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. On receiving the copy of the F.I.R, the Investigating Officer,
P.W12-S.Kandhavel proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared the
observation Mahazaar and rough sketch, and also conducted an inquest
over the body of the deceased. Thereafter, he made arrangement for the
postmortem of the deceased and recovered sample soil, as well as the
blood-stained soil. He has also recorded the statement of witnesses. On
coming to know that the appellants had surrendered on 26.06.2014
before the Sangakiri Judicial Magistrate No.II, he made arrangements
for police custody.
6. In the police custody, the appellants voluntarily gave a
confession in the presence of the witnesses and in furtherance thereof,
also effected the discovery of facts by recovering the knife. The
recovered blood-stained knife was forwarded to the Court under Form
95, and made arrangements for forensic examination. Senthil Kumar
(Accused No. 3) was arrested on 26.09.2014, and on surrender of the 4th
accused before the Salem Judicial Magistrate II, he was also arrested
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and taken into police custody for interrogation. The 4th accused gave a
confession statement and identified the scene of occurrence. Thereafter,
P.W.12-Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Krishnan-P.W8,
the postmortem Doctor, as well as the forensic experts. After receiving
the reports from the forensic department and completing the
investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the concerned
jurisdictional magistrate.
7. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the prosecution case,
they relied on as many as 12 witnesses, 21 documents and also marked 6
material objects.
8. The trial Court, after having considered the oral and
documentary evidences, has acquitted the 4th accused, Murugan.
However, as against the appellants 1 and 2, the trial Court has found
them guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and were sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, in default
simple imprisonment for 6 months. Assailing the said order, the instant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal has been filed.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
would vehemently contend that the entire evidence revolves upon the
ocular evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, and the alleged motive of property
dispute, between the deceased and accused 1 and 2. It is the contention
of the learned counsel that, though the prosecution relied upon ocular
evidence, no witnesses has supported the prosecution. Even the
recovery witnesses who allegedly witnessed the confession statement
have turned hostile. Therefore, as against accused 1 and 2, no material
are available incriminating them. It is the further contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants that, even the motive alleged has not
at all been proved. Therefore, it is his contention that the order of the
learned trial Judge is illegal and liable to be interfered with.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
contend that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 would clinchingly establish the
proof of the charges against the accused. Though P.W3 did not speak
about the occurrence during his chief examination, he has resiled from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his chief examination and admitted during the cross examination about
the involvement of the accused. It is the further contention of the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, the very registration of the
F.I.R instantaneously and the availability of the previous complaint
Ex.P9 and its C.S.R-Ex.P10 would further demonstrate the
involvement of the accused, including his motive. Therefore, he would
submit that the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge is well
merited and does not require any interference.
11. We have given our anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
12. If we look at the prosecution case, they relied upon the ocular
testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is a
person who was traveling with the deceased at the time of the
occurrence. Similarly, P.W.3 is a person who was working in a nearby
farm and witnessed the occurrence. Both are the key witnesses.
Though P.W1 had spoken about the occurrence, he unfortunately was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not able to identify the accused. The relevant portion of the evidence of
P.W1 are as follows.
“....M$h; vjphpfs; ahiua[k; vdf;F
bjhpatpy;iy/
/////vdf;F KH';fhypy; fhak; Vw;gl;lJ/
ehd; jpUk;gp ghhf;Fk; nghFk; nghJ
ey;yjk;gpia xUth; Fdpe;J bfhz;L tapw;wpd;
,uz;L gf;fKk; Fj;jp bfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;/
fj;jpahy; Fj;jpath; mUfpy; ,Ue;j egh; nghlh
fpHth vd;W brhd;dhh;/ ,y;iybad;why;
cd;ida[k; Fj;jptpLntd; vd;W brhd;dhh;/
mth;fs; ,Uthpd; milahsk; vdf;F
bjhpatpy;iy/////”
Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 is of no use to further the prosecution
case.
13. Coming to the other ocular testimony of P.W3, during his
chief examination, he also did not identify the culprit.
“////ehd; vd;d vd;W vl;o ghh;j;njd;/ 4 ngh;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rj;jk; nghl;L bfhz;oUe;jhh;fs;/ rPdpthrft[z;lh;
moj;J nghl;Ltpl;L brd;wjhf brhd;dhh;fs;/ ahh;
moj;jhh;fs; vd;W ehDk; nfl;ftpy;iy/ mtUk;
brhy;ytpy;iy/ nghyprhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;”/
However, P.W3, while being examined by the prosecution after
declaring him as hostile, he admits that the accused 1 and 2 have
stabbed the deceased. However, during the cross examination by the
accused, he unequivocally retracted and stated that he did not witness
the occurrence. The relevant admission of P.W3 is as follows:
“...rk;gtj;ij ehd; nehpy; ghh;ff; tpy;iy/
rPdpthrft[z;liu vjphpfs; Xo nghlh fpHth vd;W
brhd;dJ cz;ik jhd/; ”
Therefore, the star witnesses are P.W1 and P.W.3, which relied upon by
the prosecution, did not implicate the accused, though they speak about
the death of the deceased.
14. Therefore, if the ocular evidence goes, the remaining evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is the discovery of fact. In order to prove the discovery of facts against
the appellants, P.W6 was examined. According to the prosecution,
when the appellants were taken to the police custody on 26.06.2014,
they gave a confession statement in the presence of P.W6 and with one
Ravi. In pursuance thereof, they also effected recovery of two wheeler,
as well as the knife. But P.W6 in so many words, though he states that
he has signed on 26.06.2014, did not speak anything as to the discovery
of fact. Therefore, the recovery of blood-stained MOs', which according
to the prosecution has been used to stab the deceased, has not been
proved in the manner known to law. Even the blood stains, though it is
recorded as human, the grouping result was inconclusive. Therefore,
the recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellants was not proved
and further, even if proved, there are no scientific evidence connecting
this weapon with the occurrence. Therefore, when there is no
convincing direct evidence implicating the accused, and regarding the
recovery at the instances of the accused, mere motive alone cannot be a
ground to lay conviction against the accused. Here, the trial Court
erroneously swayed upon the narration in Ex.P.1- complaint, and found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the accused 1 and 2 guilty.
15. It is well settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt is a
salutary principle of criminal law, so that no innocent person is
punished. But at the same time, the doubt must be reasonable and one
calculated to further justice and not to frustrate it. Here, while looking
at the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, they did not implicate the accused,
and there are reasonable doubt in the recovery of knife at the instance of
the appellants. Therefore, apparently there are no evidence against the
appellants. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention here that the
suspicion, howsoever strong, the same will not be equated with that of
the actual proof.
16. In a criminal prosecution, what is essential is proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Here, in view of the reasonable doubt, which we have
discussed herein above, we could not find any material in support of the
prosecution. Besides, the prosecution has also miserably failed to prove
the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this is a fit case to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interfere with the order of conviction.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently,
the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial
Court in S.C.No.30 of 2016 dated 21.12.2018, is hereby set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of all charges levelled against him. The fine
amount, if any paid, is directed to be refunded. The bail bonds executed,
if any, shall stand terminated.
[M.S.R., J.] [C.K., J.]
19.09.2024
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes
Speaking order: Yes
srn
Note: Issue order copy today(19.09.2024)
To
1. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police
Karipatty Police station, Salem District,
Salem District
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
srn
Pre-delivery judgment made in
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
