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

MADRAS HIGH COURT (DB)
Arunachalam and Pratap Singh. JJ.
Rajendran and Another - Appellants
versus
State - Respondent
C.A. No. 194 of 1986
Decided on 3.1.1992

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellants - Mr. N.T. Vanammalai for. MIs. V. Gopinath and K.N. Basha. .
For the State - Mrs. Shanmugha Velayutharri.

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-supply of statements recorded u/s 161 (3) Criminal Procedure Code to the accused by itself would not vitiate the trial but in cases where circumstances are such that the court may reasonably infer that prejudice has resulted to the accused, the court will be justified in acquitting the accused.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 324 - Convictions under - Appeal Non-supply of copies of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer from the material witnesses at the initial stages causing prejudice to the accused - Version given to the first doctor who had examined the deceased with regard to the mode of attack on her is totally different from the version presented in the Court - Eyewitnesses are not persons of the same street but they live in different streets and they are chance witnesses - Failure to explain the reasons to be present at the place of occurrence - No consistency in the evidence of eye witnesses and that of medical evidence - Dely in the FIR reaching the Judicial Magistrate - Inconsistencies, infirmities and flaws go to the very root of the case - Prosecution has failed to prove any' of the charges against the appellants - Convictions recorded are not sustainable . Order of acquittal. (Para 18)

       (ii) Evidence - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161 and 162 - Failure on the part of the prosecution to furnish copies of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer - Whether vitiates the trial.

       Held: (i) non-supply of statements recorded' under section 161(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the accused by itself would not vitiate the trial resulting in acquittal of the accused.

       (ii) But in cases where circumstances are such that the court may reasonably infer, that prejudice has resulted to the accused from the failure to supply the statements recorded under section 161, the court will be justified in acquitting the accused. (para 11)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Pratap Singh, J. - Accused 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 107195 on the file of Sessions Judge, South Arcot District, Cuddalore, are the appellants. The appellants and Natesan and Pichaikara Gounder, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 4 respectively faced trial before the learned trial Judge. The charges were that (i) on 23.11.84, at about 6.00 P.M. at Nathamedu village, in the garden of Jayaram, accused No.3 with intention to cause the death of Andal, beat her with iron crow-bar on her head on the left and right sides and caused her death and hence liable to be punished under section 302, Indian Penal Code.

(ii) At the same time, place, accused No.2, with intention to cause the death of Jayaraman, beat him on his left hand and stabbed him on his forehead with crow-bar and attempted to commit his murder and hence he is liable to be punished, under section 307, Indian Penal Code.

(iii) At the same time and place accused' No.2 voluntarily caused simple hurt on the left palm of Lakshathipathi with crow-bar and hence liable to be punished under section 324, Indian Penal Code.

(iv) At the same time and place, accused No.1 beat Jayaraman with a firewood stick on his back and caused simple injury and hence liable to be punished under section 323, Indian Penal Code.

(v) At the same time and place while accused No.2 stabbed Jayaraman on the forehead and beat him on his left hand with crow-bar and attempted to murder him and while accused No.1 beat the said Jayaraman on his back with a fIrewood, accused No.4 caught hold of Jayaraman and instigated accused No.2 to murder him and hence he is liable to be punished under section 307, read with 109, Indian Penal Code.

After elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge, has found the first appellant (Accused no. 2) Not guilty of offence under section 307- I.P.C. but guilty under section 326 and 334 I.P.C" and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and six months respectively, the sentences to run concurrently. He also found the second appellant (accused No.3) guilty of offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C., and has convicted and sentenced him to uundergo Imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge has found accused 1 and 4 not guilty of the offences with which they were charges and had acquitted them.

2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows:

P.W. 1 Jayaraman and the first accused Natesan are the sons of the for accused Pichaikara Gounder. Accused 2 and 3 are sons of the first accused. They lived in the family house which is situated in North Street, Nathamedu village. The accused are living in the western portion; whereas . P.W. 1 is living in the eastern portion of the said. house. The door way for the eastern portion is facing south. The family owns lands to an extent of 3-1/2 acres. P.W. 1 got married in 1964 and since then he is living separately. The father viz. the fourth accused did not give any land to P.W. 1. despite his demand for the same and on that score. there were disputes. Just about one year prior to the occurrence P.WA gave 70 cents of land to P.W.l for his enjoyment. Deceased Andal was the sister of Dhanam wife of P.W.1. She was staying with P.W. 1 and his family in his portion in the house for about six months prior to the, occurrence.

3. Varadharajan, the elder brother of Dhanam and Andal is living at Ulundhandarkoil. The accused asked Varadharajan to give his daughter Anjalai in marriage to the second accused 10 days prior to the occurrence. Dhanam and. Andal objected to the, proposal and told Varadharajan not to give his daughter in marriage to accused No.2, since there is dispute between the accused and P. W: lover the family lands. On the fateful day. Manonmani wife of Varadharajan had come to P.W. l's House. P.W. 1 went to Kalpattu to purchase lice for household use and returned to the house by about 6.00 P.M. By then Manonmani and Andal were talking loudly about the proposal to give Anjalai in marriage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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