Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Nagamuthu and V. Bharathidasan, JJ.
Sundar —Appellant
versus
State —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2014
Decided on 7.6.2016
Held: In this case, according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged occurrence was at 01.00p.m. on 06.05.2008. It is alleged that P.Ws.1 to 3 saw the accused and the deceased talking to each other near the shed belonging to the deceased. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that, thereafter, he found the deceased with injuries and it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they found the accused kicking the deceased and dropping a grinding stone on his head. The deceased was thereafter taken to the hospital where at 02.15 itself he was declared dead. But, even thereafter no complaint was made. The complaint is stated to have been made at 05.30 p.m. on 06.05.2008 which is evident from the FIR. But, unfortunately, the FIR had reached the hands of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate only at 10.30 a.m. on 07.05.2008. Absolutely, there is no explanation either for the delay in preferring the complaint or for the delay in forwarding the FIR to the court. The delay is enormous which creates a strong doubt in the case of the prosecution.
Apart from the above, if we look into the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, as we have already pointed out, P.W.2 has not at all stated that it was this accused who dropped the grinding stone on the head of the deceased. It is not as though P.W.2 had left when the deceased and the accused were talking to each other. He has admitted that he was present throughout and later he found the deceased with injuries, whereas P.Ws.1 and 3 have stated that in the quarrel, the accused kicked the deceased, pushed him down and dropped the grinding stone on his head. Had it been true, the same would have been witnessed by P.W.2 also. The very the fact that P.W.2 has not stated so creates a doubt in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 in this regard. At any rate, in the light of the fact that the enormous delay in preferring the complaint and forwarding the same to the court stands unexplained which creates a strong doubt in the case of the prosecution, the doubt in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 gets further strengthened. There is absolutely no explanation for the same. In the light of the above circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain the conviction and we are bound to give the benefits arising out of such doubts in favour of the accused. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and so, he is entitled for acquittal. (Paras 14 to 15)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
S. Nagamuthu, J.—The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.124 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, has come up with this criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by judgment dated 24.01.2014.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Ayyakannu. Mr.Ayyakannu was a building contractor. He used to engage the accused to transport the building materials to the work spot in the cart owned by the accused for hire. After some time, the deceased declined to hire the bullock-cart belonging to the accused. The accused was enraged over the same.
3. On 06.05.2008 at about 01.00 p.m., it is alleged that near the shed belonging to the deceased there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of the above dispute. During the quarrel, it is alleged that the accused kicked the deceased and pushed him down. After the deceased had fallen, it is alleged that, the accused dropped a grinding stone on his head and ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 immediately engaged an auto-rickshaw and took the deceased to a private hospital where the Doctor advised P.W.1 to take the deceased to Stanley Government Medical College Hospital, Chennai. Accordingly, P.W.1 took him to the Stanley Government Medical College Hospital. P.W.14 Dr.Selvaraj, examined the deceased and declared him dead. The body was sent to the mortuary. Ex.P.7 is the accident register which came into being at 02.15 p.m. on 06.05.2008. P.W.14-the Doctor, gave an intimation to the police also.
4. P.W.1, thereafter, went to the Redhills Police Station at 05.30 p.m. on 06.05.2008 and made a complaint. P.W.5, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2008 under Section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.8 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded both the complaint-Ex.P.1 and the FIR-Ex.P.8 to the court which were received by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate at 10.30 a.m. on 07.05.2008.
5. In the mean time, taking up the investigation, P.W.15 went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. He also recovered a grinding stone (M.O.1); some blood stained earth (M.O.2); and sample earth (M.O.3) from the place of occurrence in the presence of the very same witnesses under a mahzar (Ex.P3). Then, He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the Stanley Government Medical College Hospital in the presence of the panchayatars between 09.30 and 11.30 p.m. and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P.10). He forwarded the body for postmortem.
6. P.W.13 Dr.V.Tekal, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 12.05 p.m. on 07.05.2008. He found the following injuries:-
“Injuries:-
(1) Brown irregular abrasion 3 x 1-0.5 cms, on the back of lower third of left forearm.
(2) Dark red diffuse bruising on the upper lid of right eye; Dark red sub-conjunctival haemorrhages in the right eye.
(3) Irregular laceration 5.5 x 1 x cavity deep, oblique on the parieto-temporal regions of the scalp, upper end situated 12 cms above the left mastoid process. On dissection: Dark red, scalp deep, diffuse bruising on occipital, both parietal, left temporal and frontal regions of the scalp; comminuted fracture of the calvarium involving the occipital, right and left parietal, left temporal and frontal bones. On opening the calvarium: Thin film of dark red Extradural haemorrhage over frontal, left temporal, both parietal and occipital lobes of brain; Thin film of dark red subdural haemorrhage and diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage on both the cerebral and cerebellar hemisphere. Ventricles contain fluid blood. O
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
