SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 923

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
D. THAMODARAN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
KANDASAMY & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2012
Decided On : 07-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
An accused cannot be convicted when the evidence suffers from serious inconsistencies.

Headnote:Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Occurrence in a busy place – Only 4 interested witnesses examined by prosecution – No independent witness examined – Even the witnesses so examined not consistent in their deposition – Unexplained delay in lodging FIR – Prosecution failing to prove recovery of the iron rod allegedly used for inflicting the blow – Blood-stained clothes of PWs not seized – None of the items allegedly used in attack recovered – In view of serious discrepancies in evidence High Court rightly acquitted the respondent. (Para 14, 15)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant (PW1) was running a Soda Factory under the name and style of “Suvai” and the 1st respondent herein was also running a Soda Factory under the name and style of “Rusi”. As the soda bottles of the 1st respondent were said to have been used by the appellant, their relations were strained and consequently there was enmity between them.

       On 13.04.2002 at about 9.00 pm, when the appellant (PW1) was talking with Nedunchezhian (PW2), Iyengar (PW4) and Ramesh (PW5) at the Bus Stand near the Ladapuram Mariamman Temple, accused Nos.1 to 6 came there and accused No.1 (1st respondent herein) questioned the appellant as to how the soda bottles from his factory had come to the appellant’s factory. Argument between them grew hot and the accused No.1 abused the appellant and started beating him while appellant was surrounded by accused Nos.2 to 6. Then the father of the appellant – Durairaj (deceased) came there and tried to dispel the quarrel and pacify them. At that point of time, respondent No.1 ran to the mini lorry parked nearby and took out an iron rod and gave a blow on the head of Durairaj. Durairaj fell down, bleeding with injuries, and was taken to the hospital but he was declared dead.

       The Trial Court convicted Accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) for the offence punishable u/s 304 part II IPC, and acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 6.

       Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court which was allowed and he was acquitted.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT :

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. This appeal, by special leave, has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1030 of 2003, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein and acquitted him.

2. The facts of this case, as unfolded by the prosecution, are that the appellant (PW1) was running a Soda Factory under the name and style of “Suvai” and the 1st respondent herein was also running a Soda Factory under the name and style of “Rusi”. As the soda bottles of the 1st respondent were said to have been used by the appellant, their relations were strained and consequently there was enmity between them.

3. On 13.04.2002 at about 9.00 pm, when the appellant (PW1) was talking with Nedunchezhian (PW2), Iyengar (PW4) and Ramesh (PW5) at the Bus Stand near the Ladapuram Mariamman Temple, accused Nos.1 to 6 came there and accused No.1 (1st respondent herein) questioned the appellant as to how the soda bottles from his factory had come to the appellant’s factory. Soon the argument between them grew hot and the appellant was surrounded by accused Nos.2 to 6. Accused No.1 abused the appellant and started beating him. Then the father of the appellant – Durairaj (deceased) came there and tried to dispel the quarrel and pacify them. At that point of time, it is alleged that respondent No.1 ran to the mini lorry parked nearby and took out an iron rod (used for removing tyres) and gave a blow on the head of Durairaj. Durairaj fell down, bleeding with injuries, and was taken to the hospital but he was declared dead. There were other allegations of beating, stone pelting, beatings by glass tumbler, wooden canes given by the other accused persons and PW1 and PW2 also suffered injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, the village people gathered at the place of occurrence. The appellant lodged the report same day at 11.30 p.m. at the Perambalur Police Station and the case was registered as Crime No.174 of 2002 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The accused persons were arrested on 18.04.2002, and the alleged recovery of the weapon was made at the instance of Respondent No.1.

4. The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on 14.04.2002 and it was opined that the deceased could have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained in vital parts, like brain and head and bone fracture.

5. Police filed challan against six accused and thereafter charges were framed against them under section 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 27.06.2003, convicted Accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II IPC, and acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 6, disbelieving the prosecution case. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal and acquitted respondent No.1 on the ground that the prosecution case suffered from various infirmities, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities and hence the conviction was unsustainable in law.

7. The appellant (son of the deceased) has challenged before us the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. Mr. Basant R., learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has established a clear and cogent story which is consistent with the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 5 and which is further corroborated by the medical evidence of PW3 (Doctor). The said eyewitnesses have clearly established the role of respondent No.1 in the occurrence and there is no material contradiction in respect of the place of occurrence, the weapon used and the sing









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top