Madras High Court
Minor Kuross @ Venkattagiri vs State By on 19 February, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:444
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 25.09.2024
Pronounced on 19.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
and
CRL.MP.Nos.5332 of 2022 & 5014 of 2023
Crl.A.No.448/2019
Minor Kuross @ Venkattagiri
... Appellant
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police,
Denkanikottai Circle,
Thali Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.121 of 2002)
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code praying to call for the records and set aside the conviction
and sentence imposed against the appellant on 26.03.2019 in SC.No.7/2007
on the file of the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases,
Poonamallee, Chennai and acquit the appellant.
Page 1 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.No.512/2019
1. Krishnappa (A1)
2. Narayanan @ Narayanappa (A3)
... Appellants
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Denkanikottai Circle,
Thali Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.121 of 2002)
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in SC.No.4
of 2005 dated 26.03.2019 on the file of Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases,
Chennai at Poonamallee.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.No.928/2019
Naga @ Nagappa
... Appellant
Vs.
Page 2 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Thali Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.121 of 2002)
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records in SC.No.4 of 2005 on the file of
Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, set aside the
judgment and conviction dated 26.03.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Naveen Chandar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
C O M MO N J U D G M E N T
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
These appeals are arising against the murder of one Venkatesan, which
took place on 08.05.2002 at about 9.00 a.m at Thali. The same was registered
in Crime No.121 of 2002. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet
was filed against 15 accused and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.24 of
2002.
2. For convenience sake, we deem it appropriate to refer the accused's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
rank as shown in the charge sheet [PRC.No.24 of 2002]. Similarly, the
witnesses will be referred according to their number assigned in SC.No.4 of
2009.
3. Though the charge sheet was filed against 15 persons, the accused
viz., Minor Kuross @ Venattasiri [A14] and Kamalanathan [A15] were
shown as absconding. Accordingly, the case was split up as against the
absconding accused, and the trial proceeded against A1 to A13 in SC.No.4 of
2005. Subsequently, Kamalanathan [A15] was secured and tried in the above
case. While so, after securing another absconding 14th accused [A14] qua
Minor Kuross @ Venattasiri, a separate trial was conducted in SC.No.7 of
2007.
4. After conclusion of two separate trials, two judgments were passed
on 26.03.2019, convicting the present appellants qua A1 [Krishnappa], A3
[Narayanan @ Narayanappa], A6 [Nagan @ Nagappa] and A14 [Minor
Kuross @ Venattasiri]. Against the order of conviction passed in SC.No.4 of
2009, the Accused 1 & 3 preferred the Criminal Appeal in CRL.A.No.512 of
2019. The 6th accused preferred another appeal in CRL.A.No.928 of 2019.
Similarly, the 14th accused preferred an appeal in CRL.A.No.448 of 2019
against the order passed in SC.No.7 of 2007. Since all the above appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
arise out of the same occurrence and the witnesses are same, we deem it
appropriate to take all the above appeals together for disposal.
5. According to the prosecution, the deceased Venkatesh was the
Chairman of Thali Panchayat Union. These accused are the members of Left
Wing called Radical Youth Wing. The motive for the occurrence was, non
payment of donation to the accused's organization. This conduct enraged the
accused and they hatched criminal conspiracy to do away the deceased
Venkatesh. In furtherance thereof, on 08.05.2002 at about 9.00.AM, when
the deceased and his other close associates proceeded to “Manjunath Fancy
Store” to make a phone call, the accused suddenly came to the scene of
occurrence and exploded a country bomb on the deceased, apart from
attacking the deceased with sickles and acid. As a consequence of these
brutal attack, the deceased and some of the bystanders sustained grievous
injuries, and the deceased fell down in a pool of blood. Immediately
thereafter, his associates who accompanied him, took him to the Hosur
hospital, where he was declared dead.
(a). On coming to know about the occurrence and death of the
deceased at Hosur hospital, the Police Inspector Mr.Ramachandiran [PW28]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
attached to the Hosur Police Station obtained a statement from PW1-Diwakar
and forwarded the same to the Thali Police Station. On receipt of the same,
Mr.Krishnan [PW29] registered the FIR in Crime No.121 of 2002. The
factum of the registration of the FIR was informed to the Investigating
Officer Mr.Krishnan [PW45] at about 2.00.PM on 08.05.2002. On receipt of
the information, he [PW45] proceeded to the Hosur Government Hospital and
conducted an inquest upon the body of the deceased and also made
arrangements for the postmortem.
(b). Dr.Guruviah Setty [PW34], who conducted the postmortem, gave
the postmortem certificate under Ex.P44. According to his postmortem
certificate, the deceased sustained various grievous injuries, and the cause of
death was due to the shock and hemorrhage of the injury to the vital organ.
(c). The Investigating Officer [PW45] prepared the observation
mahazar [Ex.P36], and has also collected the remnants of the explosive from
the scene of occurrence. He has also recovered live cartridge and a knife at
the scene of occurrence. On 09.05.2002, he arrested the accused
Kuttalamma [A12] and recorded her confession statement and recovered the
vehicle used for the commission of the offence and other material objects.
While so, on 11.05.2002, Mr.A.V.Ramalingam [PW31], Inspector of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
Q Branch, arrested Krishnappa [A1], Narayanan @ Narayanappa [A3],
Palanisamy @ Palani [A4], Kalagakara Krishnan @ Krishnappa[A5] and
Subramani [A7]. All the arrested accused were handed over to the
Investigating Officer Mr.Krishnan [PW45]. Before the Investigating Officer,
Krishnappa [A1], Narayanan @ Narayanappa [A3], Palanisamy @ Palani
[A4], Kalagakara Krishnan @ Krishnappa[A5] gave confession statement
voluntarily in the presence of the witnesses. Based on the above confession
statements, discovery of fact was effected.
(d). The 2nd accused Baskaran @ Gunaseelan @ Chinnathambi was
arrested by Mr.Rajendiran [PW32], and after recording his confession
statement, a discovery of fact was effected by recovering a small rifle. Again
on 05.06.2002, Mr.A.V.Ramalingam [PW31], Q Branch Inspector arrested
another accused Naga @ Nagappa [A6] and recorded his confession
statement. In pursuance thereof, a discovery of fact was effected. He also
made arrangements to send all the material objects to the concerned
Magistrate under form 91. After concluding the investigation, since the
accused 14 & 15 were absconding, he laid the charge sheet against the
accused 1 to 13 under various Sections of IPC including Section 302 IPC,
Section 27, 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and Section 9B (1)(b) of Explosive Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
6. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution relied as many as 46
witnesses in SC.No.4 of 2005, and 38 witnesses in SC.No.7 of 2007. On
behalf of the defence in SC.No.4 of 2005, 3 witnesses were examined.
Similarly in SC.No.7 of 2007, one defence witness was examined. In
SC.No.4 of 2005, the prosecution relied on 68 documents and 37 material
objects. On behalf of the defence, two exhibits were marked. Similarly, in
SC.No.7 of 2007, 42 exhibits, 34 Material Objects were marked, and 2
documents were marked on behalf of the defence.
7. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary
evidences, and the submissions of either side, had convicted Krishnappa
[A1], Narayanan @ Narayanappa [A3], and Nagan @ Nagappa [A6] in
SC.No.4 of 2005. Similarly, in SC.No.7 of 2007, the sole accused Minor
Kuross @ Venkatagiri [A14] was convicted. During the pendency of trial, the
accused Baskaran @ Gunaseelan @ Chinnathambi [A2], Palanisami @
Palani [A4], Kalakakara Krishnan @ Krishnappa [A5] died and therefore the
charge against them got abated. The remaining accused qua Subramani [A7],
Nagan @ Nagappa [A8], Raja @ Rajappa [A9], Senthilkumar @ Senthil
[A10], Saravanan [A11], Kuttalamma [A12], Rathinamma [A13] and
Kamalanathan [A15] were acquitted. The convicted accused were sentenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
to undergo maximum punishment of life imprisonment along with other
sentences and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved
with the same, the accused 1, 3, 6 and 14 preferred the instant appeals.
8. Heard Mr.R.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the accused 1 and 3,
Mr.T.Naveen Chandar, learned counsel for the 6th accused, and
Mr.P.Pugalenthi, learned counsel for the 14th accused.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the accused 1 and 3 would
vehemently contend that the very genesis of the case is doubtful and that the
alleged independent injured eyewitnesses PW4 and PW12 did not support the
prosecution and that the alleged eyewitnesses are close friends of the
deceased and they are planted witnesses. He would further contend that there
are wild contradictions between the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, and that
the delay of 100 days in forwarding 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the material
witnesses would cause reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. It was also
contended that the alleged eyewitnesses are the party member of the
deceased, and were his close associates who benefited from him, and
therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon their testimony. He would also
contend that the proclivity of the arrest of Krishnappa [A1], Narayanan @
Narayanappa [A3], Palanisamy @ Palani [A4], Kalagakara Krishnan @
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
Krishnappa[A5] and Subramani [A7] by PW31 are concocted.
10. The learned counsel would further contend that the evidence of
postmortem Doctor would falsify the bomb explosion and acid attack, which
by itself is sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The learned
counsel would also rely upon the defence witnesses and contended that the
accused were not at all at the scene of occurrence. He would also submit that
the absence of test identification parade would make the very identification of
the accused first time before the Trial Court doubtful. He would further
contend that the motive is trivial, besides the prosecution having miserably
failed to investigate the involvement of one Raja Reddy against whom the
deceased was inimically disposed and therefore, prayed for an acquittal
against the accused 1 and 3. He also placed an alternate argument that
assuming an offence is made out against A1 and A3, it could be only under
Section 326 IPC. To buttress his submission, he relied upon the following
judgments:-
1. Chilamakur Nagireddy and others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in 1977 SCC (Cri) 562;
2. K.A.Kotrappa Reddy and another Vs. Rayara
manjunatha Reddy @ Manjunatha and others reported in
(2016) 4 SCC 729;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
3. Noorahammad and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka reported
AIR 2016 SC 679;
4. Kanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR
1979 SC 1127.
11. While reiterating the above submissions, Mr.T.Naveen Chandar,
learned counsel for 6th accused, would further contend that PW2, PW3, PW6,
PW8 and PW14 were not at all at the scene of occurrence and their absence,
manifested through the material contradictions brought out during cross
examination. Thus, he also would pray for an acquittal against the 6th
accused.
12. Mr.P.Pugalenthi, the learned counsel for the 14th accused, while
concurring with the above submissions, would also contend that the delay in
forwarding the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, PW6 and PW7 would make the
prosecution case become highly doubtful. He would also invite our attention
about the evidence of Dr.Gurviah Setty [PW34] so as to explain the absence
of telltale materials, for the use of explosive. Thus, he also prayed for an
order of acquittal. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
precedents:-
1. Suresh Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 128;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
2. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Wazir Khan and another reported
in (2008) 15 SCC 447.
13. We have given our anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
14. The entire prosecution's case is based upon the eyewitness account.
It is well settled principle of law that if the veracity of the eyewitness is
highly trustworthy, any inconsistency in the Doctor/expert evidence and the
infirmity in the discovery of fact, will in no way impact upon the
prosecution's case. Here, it was mainly contended that the postmortem
Doctor's [PW34] evidence would demonstrate the falsity over the
prosecution's case, as there are no materials to support the usage of explosive
material and Gun.
15. Now let us consider whether the doctor's evidence can have any
impact upon the evidence of the eyewitnesses.
16. According to the prosecution, PW1-Diwakar had set the law in
motion through his complaint [Ex.P37]. However, when he was examined
before the Court, he did not support the complaint [Ex.P37] and turned
hostile. However, he had deposed before the Court that he was present in the
scene of occurrence, along with one Girish [PW2], Muniraj [PW4],
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
Chandirappa [PW5] and Mani [PW8]. He would further categorically speak
about the presence of the deceased Venkatesh at the scene of occurrence.
According to him, when the deceased Venkatesh was returning from
Manjunath Store, some unknown persons, who came in a vehicle, exploded
the bomb and as a consequence, the scene of occurrence was engulfed in
smoke. In his evidence, he did not implicate any of the accused, but had
categorically spoke about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the
presence of Girish [PW2], Muniraj [PW4], Chandirappa [PW5], Mani [PW8],
Ellappa and Nagaraj at the scene of occurrence and also about the
arrangement to treat Venkatesh at Hosur Hospital, where he was declared
dead.
17. Though PW1 turned hostile, his evidence unequivocally
established the explosion of bomb and the presence of some of the associates
of deceased Venkatesh, more specifically, PW2 [Girish], PW4 [Muniraj] PW5
[Chandrappa] and PW8 [Mani] at the scene of occurrence. It is well settled
principle of law that just because a witness had turned hostile, his entire
evidence need not be eschewed. On the other hand, the same can be used to
the extent it supports the prosecution's case. Fortunately or unfortunately, his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
evidence was not at all challenged by the accused and not even a suggestion
was made to deny his statement. The wholesome reading of PW1 evidence
would indubitably demonstrate that the deceased was attacked by a group of
people, and while the occurrence took place, Girish [PW2], Muniraj [PW4],
Chandirappa [PW5] and Mani [PW8] were present at the scene of occurrence.
In view of the above discussion, the unchallenged testimony of PW1 would
make the submission of the appellant about the doubt in using explosive
become contrary to the admitted fact. It is in this background, the evidence
of Doctor would become insignificant.
18. Now let us consider the evidence of eyewitnesses one after another,
whose presence was proved through PW1. Let us start with the evidence of
Girish [PW2]. While narrating the occurrence, he would also state that at the
time of the occurrence, Diwakar [PW1], Madhesh [PW3], Mani [PW8], Pathi
[PW13], Chandirappa [PW5] and Subbarao [PW6] were present. Though
PW2-Girish has included certain other names, two names viz., Chandirappa
[PW5] and Mani [PW8] tallied with Diwakar's [PW1] unchallenged
evidence. As such, the presence of PW1, PW2, PW5 & PW8 at the scene of
occurrence is covertly and overtly proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
19. According to Girish [PW2], he spoke about hurling of the bomb by
Krishnappa [A1], Narayanan @ Narayanappa [A3], Nagan @ Nagappa [A6],
Palanisami @ Palani [A4]. Apart from that, he also had spoken about the
assault of Krishnappa [A1] and Nagan @ Nagappa [A6] through sickle. At
this juncture, it is appropriate to discuss the alleged contradictions of PW2
put forth by the learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 3. For convenience
sake, we deem it appropriate extract the alleged contradictions along with
date of examination in chief and cross:-
Deposition of Chief Examination Cross examination
with date with date
28.01.2008 20.06.2016
ehfh mUthSld; bt';fnlir tyJ fGj;Jf;F bt';fnlrdpd; gpnujj;ij ghh;j;njdh vd;why;
mUfpy; ,uz;L btl;L btl;odhh;/ fpUc&;zg;gh ghh;j;njd;/ mJ v';F fple;jJ vd;why;
mUthSld; bt';fnlc&; Kfj;jpy; btl;odhh;/ k";Rehjh !;nlhhpy; fple;jJ/ ve;j jpirapy; mJ
mJ thapd; mog;gFjpapy; gl;lJ/ fple;jJ vd;W brhy;y ,aYkh vd;why; brhy;y
,ayhJ/
28.01.2008 21.10.2009
rk;gtj;jpy; m/rh/1 jpthfUf;F fhak; Vw;gl;lJ/ jpthfUf;F fhak; Vw;gl;ljh vd vdf;F
epidtpy;iy.
rk;gtj;jpy; vdf;F fhak; vJt[k; Vw;gltpy;iy/
06.02.2008
rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ehd; ,Uf;ftpy;iy mjhdhy;jhd;
vdf;F vt;tpj fhaKk; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;why;
rhpay;y
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
Deposition of Chief Examination Cross examination
with date with date
28.01.2008 20.06.2016
ehDk; m/rh/1k;. re;jpug;gh. gjp. kzp. ehfuh$;. bt';fnlrDld; ehd; kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;nwd;
f';fg;gh. Rg;ghuht;. Mfpnahh;fs; bt';fnlir vd;why; mtiu Rkhh; fhiy 10/45 kzpf;F
M!;gj;jphpf;F vLj;Jr;brd;nwhk;. kUj;Utkidapy; nrh;j;njhk;/
bt';fnlrDf;F fhak;gl;l gpd;dh; vj;jid kzpf;F
jspapypUe;J fpsk;gpndhk; vd;why; "hgfkpy;iy/
28.01.2008 21.10.2009
jpthfUf;F mth; rl;il KGtJk; uj;jk; bt';fnlrid J}f;fpr; brd;wjpy; vdf;F uj;jk;
goe;jpUe;jJ/ gl;ljh vd vdf;F epidtpy;iy/
fhak;gl;l bt';fnlrid ehDk; J}f;fpndd;/
rk;gtj;jpy; ehd; bt';fnlrid J}f;fp ,Ue;jhy;
vd; cilfspy; ,uj;jk; goe;jpUf;Fk; vd;gJk; mij
ehd; nghyPrpy; xg;gilj;jpUg;ngd; vd;gJk; rhpay;y/
28.01.2008 21.10.2009
,d;!;bgf;lh; te;J tprhhpj;jhh;/ jpthfiua[k; vd;id xU Ma;thsh; tprhhpj;jhh;/ mth; bgah;
tprhhpj;jhh;/ jpthfh; !;nll;bkz;l; brhd;dhh; epidtpy;iy/ md;W gfy; 11 kzpf;Fg; gpd; vd;id
mth;fs; vGjpf;bfhz;lhh;fs;/ ahUk; ,e;j tHf;F bghUl;L tprhhpj;jhh;fsh vd;W
"hgfk; ,y;iy/
20.06.2016
,e;j tHf;F tprakhf vj;jid kzpf;F ve;j
Ma;thsh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh; vd;why; rhpahf
"hgfkpy;iy.
bt';fnlrd; mz;zd; re;jpug;ghjhd; Kjd; Kjypy;
g[fhh; bfhLj;jhh; vd;why; "hgfkpy;iy/ re;jpug;gh
bfhLj;j g[fhiu ntz;Lbkd;W ,e;j tHf;fpy;
kiwj;Js;shh;fs; vd;why; "hgfkpy;iy/
ehd; kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;w epiyapy; vd;dplk;
nghyprhh; VnjDk; g[fhh; bfhLf;fr; brhd;dhh;fsh
vd;why; ehd; ele;jij brhd;ndd;/ Kjd; Kjypy;
vd;dplk;jhd; nfl;lhh;fsh vd;why; "hgfkpy;iy/
28.01.2008 20.06.2016
vjphpfis rhl;rp ePjpkd;wj;jpy; fhl;o 1 kw;Wk; 3 vjphpfis rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;dh; vg;nghJ
1/fpUc&;zg;gh. 2/ghr;fh;. 3/ ehuhazd;. 4/gHdp. ghh;j;njd; ve;j njjpapy; ghh;j;njd; vd;W brhy;y
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
Deposition of Chief Examination Cross examination
with date with date
5/ehfh. 6/ Rg;gpukzp mLj;j egh; bgah; ,aYkh vd;why; brhy;y ,ayhJ/ rk;gtj;jpw;F
bjhpatpy;iy/////////////// kw;w vjphpfs; bgah; Kd;g[ 1 kw;Wk; 3 vjphpfs; gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ
bjhpatpy;iy vd;Wk; milahsk; bjhpa[k; vd;Wk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ vdnt mth;fSila bgah;. Ch;.
nkw;brhd;d egh;fs;jhd; rk;gtj;J md;W Kfthp gw;wp rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;g[ vdf;F bjhpahJ
,Ue;jjhf rhl;rp Twfpd;whhh;/ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ kPz;Lk; rhl;rp nahrpj;J
rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;dh; vjphpfis gw;wp
nfs;tpg;gl;oUf;fpnwd; vd;Wk; mth;fisg;
ghh;j;jpUf;fpnwd; vd;Wk; kPz;Lk; TWfpwhh;/
21.10.2009
rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ehd; ,y;iy vd;gjhy;jhd;
vd;dplk; nfl;fg;gl;l nfs;tpfSf;F ehd;
epidtpy;iy vd;W brhy;fpnwd; vd;gJ rhpay;y/
20.06.2016
kUj;Jthplk; ele;j tptu';fisg; gw;wp v'fs;
jug;gpy; ahh; brhd;dhh;fs; vd;W bjhpa[kh vd;why;
"hgfkpy;iy/
kUj;Jtkidapy; vj;jid kzpapypUe;J vj;jid
kzp tiu ,Ue;njd; vd;W brhy;y Koa[kh
vd;why; "hgfkpy;iy/
ehd; vj;jid kzpf;F jspf;F jpUk;gp te;njd;
vd;W brhy;y ,aYkh vd;why; rhpahf
"hgfkpy;iy/
From the above spate of alleged contradictions, we could not find any
material contradiction, which goes to the root of the matter. At the best,
through this alleged contradictions, the appellant may challenge the presence
of PW2. But in contrast, his presence at the scene of occurrence is proved
beyond reasonable doubt through PW1's unchallenged evidence.
20. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that while the occurrence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
took place on 08.05.2002, Girish-PW2 was examined in Chief on 28.02.2008,
after a period of 6 years, and the so called contradictions, most of which was
during the cross examination dated 20.02.2016, after a lapse of 14 years from
the date of occurrence. Those contradictions do not affect the credibility of
PW2's evidence, since they are not material contradictions. Further, the long
delay of 14 years for cross examination, from the date of occurrence, and 8
years after the examination in chief would also dilute the rigour of these
contradictions, as we cannot expect a witness to remember the events
perpetually with all it's precious and minute details. Hence, we are of the
firm view that these alleged contradictions will in no way cause any dent in
the prosecution case.
21. Similarly, Madhesh [PW3] has also reiterated the involvement of
Palani [A4] and the present appellants. Likewise, Muniraj [PW4] had spoken
about the presence of PW1-Diwakar, PW8-Mani and PW13-Pathi at the scene
of occurrence, though he turned hostile. He also deposed about the explosion
of bomb and the nature of occurrence, but had not identified the assailants.
22. Similarly, Chandrappa [PW5], who turned hostile, has again
reiterated the presence of PW1-Diwakar, PW6-Subbarao, PW8-Mani and
PW4-Muniraj.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
23. Here, Mani [PW8] supported the prosecution's case and deposed
before the Court that one Mr.Palani [deceased] hurled a bomb on the
deceased, after which, one Krishnappa [A1], Nagan @ Nagappa Devarpatta
[A6] and Narayanan @ Narayanappa [A3] along with other unidentifiable
persons, arrived at the scene of occurrence, wherein Nagan @ Nagappa
Devarpatta [A6] had assaulted the deceased with a sickle. However, the
evidence of PW8 was challenged on the ground that his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C reached the Court on 26.08.2002 after a lapse of 100 days.
No doubt, his 161 Cr.P.C statement reached the Court with certain delay, but
the fact remains that his presence at the scene of occurrence was proved
through PW1's unchallenged testimony. But, we are only relying his [PW8]
evidence for the purpose of corroboration, as he spoke about the nature and
proclivity of the occurrence and the respective accused's overtact, which
tallies with PW2-Girish evidence. In such view of the matter, a delay in
sending the 161 Cr.P.C statement can only be construed as defective
investigation, which has no force to impede the strength of the PW8's
evidence.
24. It is equally pertinent to mention here that PW8-Mani was
examined in chief during 2008, after a lapse of 6 years from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
occurrence. Thereafter, he was cross examined on 05.10.2009 and 20.06.2016
almost after a period of 7 years, and 14 years respectively from the date of
occurrence. In spite of such long delay, the defence could not shatter his
credibility through their cross examination.
25. The learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 3 has also culled out
certain alleged contradiction of other witnesses. But, we are of the firm view
that those contradictions are not on the material particulars. As such, we do
not want to burden this judgment by extracting those alleged contradictions.
26. Similarly, PW6-Subbarao had also spoken about the involvement
of one Palani [A4] and the presence of appellants. From our above
discussions, it is amply clear that the presence of the eyewitnesses, more
particularly PW2 and PW8, was not under challenge. Further, we could not
find any ground to disbelieve their versions and their evidences are cogent
and to the point. Apart from that, the charges, though not specifically framed
along with Section 149 IPC against A1, A6 & A14, on a wholesome reading
of the charges covertly and overtly indicates the ingredients of Section 149
IPC. As such, even if there were any contradictions in respect of specific
overtact of these accused, the fact remains that their presence at the scene of
occurrence and their common object to do away the deceased was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
unequivocally established through the eyewitness account, qua PW2-Girish,
PW3-Madhesh, PW6-Subbarao and PW8-Mani.
27. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 3, would
rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chilamakur
Nagireddy's case [cited supra] and contend that when there are no evidence
as to the nature of injury inflicted by the individual accused and when the
opinion of the Doctor is based upon the cumulative effect of all the injuries,
imposing a punishment under Section 326 IPC is proper course, instead under
Section 302 IPC. But, on a close reading of the above precedent, the accused
have charged under Section 302 simplicitor, but, in the case in hand, the 3rd
accused were charged under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, and the charges framed
against the other accused overwhelmingly have the ingredients of Section 149
IPC, which would also make them vicariously liable even if the injury caused
by the respective accused is not sufficient to cause death.
28. The learned counsel has also relied upon other judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A.Kotrappa Reddy's case [cited supra] and
Noorahammad's case [cited supra]. Those cases which arose against the
order of acquittal, deals about the trustworthiness of the eyewitnesses. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
case on hand, as we already discussed, the presence of the eyewitnesses is
unchallenged and they had categorically spoken about the involvement of
these appellants and one Palani and their evidences were sufficiently
corroborated by other witnesses. Therefore, we do not find any ground to
apply the above ratio.
29. The learned counsel has also relied upon yet another judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kanan's case [cited supra], and would
contend that the reliance of identification of a person for the first time before
Court, would become highly dangerous to lay conviction. However, the facts
of the reported case is altogether different from the case on hand. In the
reported judgment, the Court was of the view that the witness, who identifies
the accused has no previous acquaintance with the accused. It is in that
background, his evidence was not relied. But, in the case in hand, the
witnesses and the accused were known to each other. Hence, this Court does
not find any infirmity in placing reliance on the evidence of the eyewitness
regarding the identity of the accused.
30. In addition to the above judgments, the learned counsel appearing
for the 14th accused has also relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suresh Chaudhary's case [cited supra] and Wazir Khan's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
case [cited supra] and would contend that the absence of any material in the
Doctor's [PW34] evidence about the use of explosion, would lead to a
reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. As already stated, the explosion
of bomb has been proved to it's hilt through the eyewitnesses. It is pertinent
to mention here that the evidence of experts viz., PW41 to PW44 would also
support the case of the prosecution about the use of explosion. If at all there
could be any dispute, it may be only as to who caused the explosion? Here, in
our case, such factum was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubts. Therefore, the above cited case laws, have no application to the facts
of the case in hand.
31. In view of our above detailed discussions, we can safely conclude
that the Trial Court considered the evidence and documents in it's right
perspective and has arrived at a right conclusion. Further, the appellants
could not make out any ground to deviate from the finding of the Trial Court.
Thus, we do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of the
Trial Court, and as a concomitant, these appeals are liable to be dismissed.
32. Accordingly, all the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The
judgments dated 26.03.2019 passed in S.C.Nos.7 of 2007 and 4 of 2005 by
the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee are hereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the
appellants/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.
Consequently, connected CMPs are also closed.
[M.S.R., J.] [C.K., J.]
19.02.2025
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
kmi
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases,
Poonamallee, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Denkanikottai Circle, Thali Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
Pre-delivery judgment made in
Crl.A.Nos.448, 512 & 928 of 2019
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
