Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy, JJ.
Sheikh Sintha Madhar @ Jaffer @ Sintha Etc. – Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2118-2119 of 2009
With
Shahjahan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2117 of 2009
Decided on : 13-04-2016
(b) Criminal trial – Evidence – PW1 not named in inquest report – Of no consequence. (Para 13)
(c) Criminal trial – Eye witness – Distance and brightness – Area illuminate by electric bulbs – At 10pm in silent surroundings even slight noise would be heard – Screams of deceased could have been heard by PW1 who was expecting her father back from his clinic. (Para 14)
(d) Criminal trial – Medical and ocular evidence – PW1 mentioning knife as weapon of murder – Post mortem report stating deep cut injuries – Could be caused by knife – Medical evidence thus corroborating statement of PW1. (Para 15)
(e) Criminal trial – TI parade – Delay or holding TIPs jointly – Two accused made part of same TIP – No bar – TIP not invalid. (Para 16)
(f) Criminal trial – Evidence – Few strands of hair in the hands of deceased – Not matching with any accused except A13, already acquitted – Accused cannot be exonerated on this ground alone. (Para 17)
(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Conspiracy between A1 to A6 – Established beyond reasonable doubt by evidence of PW 36, 37 and PW 17 – No error in conviction. (Para 19, 20, 21)
(h) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 147, and 109 r/w 302 – A7 acquitted of charges of conspiracy with A8 to A13 – PW1 identifying A7 but not stating that he was the one standing unarmed – PW65 not identifying A7 or any other accused in the Court – A8 to A13 acquitted of charges u/s 109 and 302 – Presence of A7 at the place of incident doubtful – A7 deserves to be acquitted. (Para 2, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
After the Coimbatore serial blasts, a conspiracy was hatched to do away with Dr. Sridhar (deceased). There were a total of 13 accused. A1 to A6 formed one group and hatched a conspiracy under the leadership of A1. The second group was formed under the guidance of A8 and included A7 to A13. Both these groups had planned to kill the deceased in two separate conspiracies at two different places. A1 to A7 formed an unlawful assembly on 2.2.1999 and attacked the deceased at about 10 p.m. when he was returning back from his clinic. A1 to A6 attacked the deceased with weapons in pursuance of the common object and caused his death and A7 stood nearby unarmed.
The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the offences.
The High Court dismissed both the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
There is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court so far as it has confirmed the conviction and sentence of A1 to A6.
Result: Criminal Appeal Nos.2118-2119 of 2009 dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.2117 of 2009 allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. These appeals, by special leave, have been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.1736 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No.1807 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants and confirmed their conviction and sentences for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that after the Coimbatore serial blasts, a conspiracy was hatched to do away with Dr. Sridhar (deceased), who was BJP Town Secretary at Trichy, and also actively involved in the propagation of the Hindu religion in the town. There were a total of 13 accused that hatched conspiracies in two separate groups to kill Dr. Sridhar and curb the growth of BJP in the city. A1 to A6 formed one group and hatched a conspiracy under the leadership of A1. The second group was formed under the guidance of A8 and included A7 to A13 who conspired at Tirunelveli. Both these groups had planned to kill the deceased in two separate conspiracies at two different places. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A1 to A7 formed an unlawful assembly on 2.2.1999 and attacked the deceased at about 10 p.m. when he was returning back from his clinic. A1 to A6 attacked the deceased with weapons in pursuance of the common object and caused his death and A7 stood nearby unarmed. As claimed by the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by the daughter of the deceased (Lakshmi Priya-PW1), neighbours of the deceased (Domnic Raja-PW2, Sagayarajan-PW3 and Dr. Soundirarajan-PW65) and the night watchman in the area (Mr. Marimuthu-PW5).
3. After investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against all the 13 accused persons. Upon considering the material on record and hearing the counsel on both sides, the accused persons were charged for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them. All the accused persons pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed for trial.
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 7.10.2003, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the offences as follows: A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 302, Section 148 and Section 302 IPC. A3 and A6 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 302 IPC. A7 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 and Section 109 read with Section 302 IPC. However, he was acquitted of the charges under Section 120-B read with 302 and Section 201 read with Section 302 IPC. A8 to A13 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
5. The matter came up before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) vide Criminal Appeal No.1736 of 2003 filed by A5 and Criminal Appeal No.1807 of 2003 filed by A1, A2, A3, A4, A6 and A7. No appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of A8 to A13. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dismissed both the appeals on the ground that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that A1 to A6 had conspired to kill Dr. Sridhar and A7 was a part of the unlawful assembly and participated in the murder of Dr. Sridhar (deceased). Since the conspiracy and murder were proved, the High Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Madras High Court, the accused have filed the appeals before this Court against their conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal Nos.2118-2119 of 2009 is filed by A1 to A6 and Criminal Appeal No.2117 of 2009 is filed by A7. We shall first discuss the culpability of A1 to A6 and subsequently deal with the conviction and sentence of A7.
7. Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. Ratnakar Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant
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
