Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI ,JJ.
Murugesan & Others
Versus
State through Inspector of Police
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2009
Decided On : 12-10-2012
AIR 1934 PC 227 (2); AIR 1954 SC 1; AIR 1957 SC 216; AIR 1963 SC 200; (1970) 2 SCC 450; (1998) 5 SCC 412; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2007) 3 SCC 755; (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 379 – Interference with order of acquittal is different from interfering with order of conviction – In case of appeal Supreme Court against order of interference with conviction requires leave of the Court – In case of appeal against interference with order of acquittal, requirement of leave is dispensed with.
(2011) 8 SCC 65 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Trial court acquitting the accused persons of the charge u/s 120B – High Court reversing the same – Trial court view being a possible view, High Court ought not to have interfered – Secondly, mere presence of the accused at the spot armed with weapons and responding to call of A-14, A-15 and A-16 to attack the deceased does not establish charge of conspiracy. (Para 20)
(d) Criminal Trial – Alibi – Plea of alibi accepted by trial court – A possible view – High Court ought not to have interfered. (Para 21)
(e) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Major discrepancies in evidence of witnesses, including eye witness, noted by trial court – Three witnesses turning hostile – One witness trying to falsely implicate some of the accused persons – Charge of conspiracy not established – Alibi of two accused accepted by trial court – FIR registered u/s 302 even though deceased persons were alive at the relevant time – Trial court acquitting all accused persons – A possible view – High Court ought not to have interfered. (Para 22 to 25)
Words and Phrases – Possible view – A possible view denotes an opinion which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion – So long as the view taken by trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted – High Court cannot supplant it own view over and above such view of the trial court. (Para 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to murder of three persons D-1, D-2 and D-3. 23 persons were made accused in the case.
The trial court framed charges against the present appellants (17 in number) and six others under Sections 120 B, 147, 148, 332 and 302 read with Section 34/109/149 of the IPC. The trial court held that the charges levelled against the accused persons have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the 23 accused were acquitted. The High Court set aside the acquittal of A-1 to A-19 and convicted them under different Sections of the IPC. The acquittal ordered by the learned trial court in respect of A-20, A-21, A-22, and A-23 was, however, maintained by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought not to have interfered with the possible view of the trial court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
This appeal, under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is against the order of the High Court of Madras reversing the acquittal of the appellants and convicting and sentencing each one of them under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘IPC’). All the accused persons have been convicted under Section 120 B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each. The accused appellants have also been found guilty under Section 302 of IPC for their individual acts or constructively under Section 34/149 IPC for commission of the said offence. They have been accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Some of the appellants have also been found guilty of the offences under Section 148 and Section 332 read with Section 149 IPC for which sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years have been imposed. Aggrieved the present appeal has been filed.
2. For the sake of clarity reference to the accused is hereinafter being made in the chronological order arranged in the proceedings of the trial and the three deceased, i.e., Veeraperumal, Karumpuli and Madaswamy are being referred to as D-1, D-2 and D-3 respectively.
The case of the prosecution, in short, is that there was a land dispute between Karumpuli (D-2) and his family and A-1, Thirumani, and his party. There were civil litigations between the parties over the said property. According to the prosecution, on account of the aforesaid dispute, the younger brother of the accused No.15 was murdered and in the said case D-1, D-2 and D-3 were arrayed as accused. At the relevant point of time, the three deceased persons were on bail. There was another case pending against D-1 and D-2 in respect of an incident of a bomb attack on the rival party. In connection with the said case, the aforesaid two deceased who were arrested were brought to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam on the day of the occurrence, i.e. 22.09.1991 for execution of the bail bonds etc. so as to enable them to be released on bail. Thiru Bagavati (PW-1), Alagar (PW-2), Periyasami (PW-3) and Kalimuthu (PW-4) along with D-3 had come to meet D-1 and D-2 in the court complex. On the same day, A-14, A-15, and A-16 who were also under arrest in another case were brought by the police to the court complex for purpose of further remand. The other accused persons had come to see A-14, A-15, and A-16. Both the groups, including the deceased and the accused who were brought from jail, were engaged in their respective conversations. According to the prosecution, at a point of time between 2.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., A-14, A-15 and A-16 asked the other members of the accused party who had come to meet them to finish off D-1 and D-2. On being so instigated, according to the prosecution, the other members of the accused party inflicted fatal injuries on D-1, D-2 and D-3. It is the further case of the prosecution that D-1, on being inflicted injuries by the accused persons, ran towards the Police Station, situated near the court complex and made a statement (Ex. P-1) based on which the FIR (Ex.22) was registered by PW-27. Thereafter, the FIR was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam which was received at about 5.00. p.m. on the same day.
The injured D-1 was shifted to the Government Hospital and on an intimation being sent by PW-20 Dr. Rajaram (Raj Mohan), Assistant Civil Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, the learned Judicial Magistrate (PW-6) came to the hospital to record the dying declaration of the injured, Veeraperumal. According to the prosecution, while his statement was being recorded, D-1, slipped into a coma and, thereafter, died at about 4.07 p.m. The dying declaration (Exh P-4) was recorded in the presence of Paulsama, Medical Officer (PW-21) who had certified that the injured (D-1) was in a fit condition to make the statement. It is the further case
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
