2010 Supreme(SC) 796

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
C. Muniappan & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 127-130 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1632-1634 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 1482-1484 of 2008)
Decided on : 30-08-2010

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 195(a)(i) – Exception to section 190 – Bars cognizance of any offence punishable under section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order – Similarly sections 196 and 198 also bar cognizance unless some requirements are complied with. (Para 20)

       AIR 1971 SC 1708; AIR 1971 SC 1935; (1996) 3 SCC 533; (1998) 2 SCC 391; (2005) 7 SCC 352; AIR 2005 SC 2119 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 r/w section 195, Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 195 being mandatory, cognizance cannot be taken u/s 188 unless the public servant whose orders have not been complied with files a complaint in writing – Non-compliance of section 195 would render trial and conviction void ab initio – Instantly no such complaint filed – Charge could not be framed u/s 188 IPC – Even if charges u/s 188 are quashed, charges for other offences will remain unaffected. (Para 25, 27)

       AIR 1953 SC 293; AIR 1966 SC 1775; AIR 2000 SC 168; (1998) 2 SCC 493; AIR 1962 SC 1206 – Relied upon

       (c) Criminal Trial – Clubbing of cases – One occurrence fall out of the other – They would be one and the same occurrence – Damage caused to the public transport vehicles and consequential burning of the University bus – Part of one and the same incident – Merely lodging of two separate complaints will not bar clubbing together of these cases – No infirmity in filing one charge sheet. (Para 28)

       (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Relied upon

       (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – TI Parade – Part of the investigation – Very useful where the accused are not known before-hand to the witnesses – Used only to corroborate the evidence recorded in the court – Therefore not substantive evidence – Accused should not be shown to any of the witnesses after arrest, and before holding the Test Identification Parade, he is required to be kept "baparda" – Witnesses identifying accused in jail as well as in court – No infirmity. (Para 36, 39, 40)

       AIR 2004 SC 299; AIR 1994 SC 2420; AIR 2003 SC 2669; (2009) 6 SCC 667; (2009) 9 SCC 719; AIR 1998 SC 1922; (2003) 12 SCC 666; (2004) 3 SCC 106; (2007) 12 SCC 654; (2008) 9 SCC 227; (2006) 12 SCC 512; AIR 1999 SC 3916; (2010) 3 SCC 508; AIR 1971 SC 1050; AIR 1973 SC 2190; (1994) 3 SCC 569; AIR 1999 SC 2562 – Relied upon

       (e) Criminal Trial – Hostile witness – One witness turning hostile – In view of consistent evidence of other witnesses, on witness turning hostile does not affect the prosecution case. (Para 42)

       (f) Criminal trial – Defective investigation – Occurrence ugly and awful – Investigation in highly charges atmosphere – Some irregularities bound to occur – Investigation transferred to CBCID – Irregularities committed in investigation lose relevance – However, defect in investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. (Para 43, 44)

       AIR 1974 SC 220; (1995) 5 SCC 518; AIR 1998 SC 1850; AIR 1999 SC 644; AIR 2000 SC 185; AIR 2003 SC 1164; AIR 2002 SC 1051; AIR 2004 SC 2329 – Relied upon

       (g) Criminal trial – Extra judicial confession – Only admissible part of such statement can be exhibited – Instantly, full statement exhibited in court – Not permissible – However in view of sufficiency of other materials on record it did not prejudice the accused. (Para 67, 68)

       (2007) 12 SCC 230; AIR 1947 PC 67; AIR 2000 SC 1691; AIR 2004 SC 2865 – Relied upon

       (h) Criminal trial – Hostile witness – Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole – Relevant parts thereof, admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. (Para 70)

       AIR 1976 SC 202; AIR 1977 SC 170; AIR 1979 SC 1848; AIR 1991 SC 1853 – Relied upon

       (i) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Discrepancies – Minor or trivial omissions or discrepancies – Ought to be ignored. (Para 71)

       AIR 1972 SC 2020; AIR 1985 SC 48; AIR 1983 SC 753; AIR 2007 SC 2257; (2009) 11 SCC 588; (2009) 9 SCC 626; AIR 2009 SC 151 – Relied upon

       (j) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Appellants may have had a grievance and a right of peaceful demonstration, but they cannot claim a right to cause grave inconvenience and humiliation to others, merely because a competent criminal court has handed down a judicial pronouncement that is not to their liking – Some of the appellants had evil designs to cause damage to a greater extent so that people may learn a "lesson" – No provocation – Accused sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting it on fire with the students still inside the bus – As a result three girls burnt alive – Offence committed after previous planning and with extreme brutality – Murders of helpless, innocent, unarmed, young girl students in a totally unprovoked situation – Death sentence rightly awarded. (Para 77)

       AIR 1980 SC 898; AIR 1983 SC 957; AIR 2002 SC 1661; JT 2010 (8) SC 372; AIR 1987 SC 1346; AIR 2009 SC 391; (2009) 11 SCC 798; (2008) 11 SCC 113; AIR 1991 SC 1463 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       When the students of Agriculture University were on educational tour, political agitators in their protest against conviction of their leader took to roads and damaged the buses of the students. Te bus carrying the girl students was set on fire in which three girl students were burnt alive.

       In total, 31 accused were put to trial. A.22 died during trial. A.15 and A.27 stood acquitted.

       The remaining 28 accused were convicted under Sections 188, 341 IPC and 3 & 4 of TNP (PDL) Act r/w 149 IPC. In addition, all of them except A.24, were convicted for offence u/s 147 IPC, whereas accused No. 24, was convicted, for an offence u/s 148 IPC. Apart from that A.2, and A.3, were convicted for offences u/s 302 IPC (3 counts) and A.4, u/s 302 r/w 114 IPC (3 counts) and the A.2 and 3 were convicted also for offences u/s 307 IPC (46 counts) and A4 for offences u/s 307 r/w 114 IPC for 46 counts. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were sentenced to death.

       All the 28 convicts filed appeals before the High Court of Madras. The death sentence references in respect to A.2, A.3 and A.4 were also made. Crl. Revision was filed by the father of one of the deceased, namely, Hemalatha, for enhancement of punishment imposed on all the accused. As all the appeals, references and Crl. Revision arose out of a common judgment, they were taken up jointly and disposed of by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order.

       The High Court modified the conviction of accused No. 24 under section 148 IPC as being under section 147 IPC. Accused nos. 1, 5 to 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 26 and 28 to 31 were awarded different punishment for different offences, however, maximum punishment remained two years as all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

       Conviction and sentence of death against accused Nos. 2 to 4 was confirmed by the High Court along with all other sentences under different heads.

       Finding of the Court:

       Death sentence has been rightly awarded.

       Result:

       Appeals dismissed.